╌>

TRUMP’S US Supreme Court Will Preside Over the Breakup of California…

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  redding-shasta-jefferson-usa  •  7 years ago  •  50 comments

TRUMP’S US Supreme Court Will Preside Over the Breakup of California…
When California’s liberal Democrat legislative majority passed infamous Senate Bill #277 mandating seventy-four (74) “Made-in-China” vaccines as a requirement for California’s children to attend Public or Private schools no one suspected that that act would act as the catalyst to bring down the Democratic Party both nationwide and in California – but it did. And it is…

Today, California itself is on the chopping block. NORMAL PEOPLE are taking control away from the liberal Democrats. Here today I will tell you how ONE very coherent group has identified the problem and is taking action to solve it very effectively.

There is a lot here to read – but the problem in California has been clearly identified. Read it all – for solution is on its way.

Let’s Begin…

Twenty-one of California’s 58 Counties OFFICIALLY want OUT of California – as far away from the California liberal Democrat’s form of Communist-Socialism as they can get – and they have a VERY GOOD PLAN to accomplish their goals.

They have activated the first step – a Federal Lawsuit – and it is right on target…

On May 8th of this year (2017) a group calling itself Citizens For Fair Representation, along with specific individuals, filed a Federal Court action in the Eastern District of California (Sacramento) claiming to the Court that the State of California has intentionally abridged the concept of government of “We the People” turning California government into an “oligarchy inconsistent with representative self-governance.”

The suit claims that the “Oligarchy” controls the State of California by maintaining neglect…

From the lawsuit’s introduction:

“This neglect of “We the People” as the organic basis for this Nation’s self-governance stems from the cap the California government placed on the number of Senators (limited to 40) and Assembly Members (limited to 80) in 1862, when the population of the State was less 420,000 people. This arbitrary cap has created an oligarchy inconsistent with representative self-governance because the same number of legislators (120 total) now attempts to represent California’s present population of nearly forty MILLION (40,000,000) people. By any metric, this is impossible; 120 legislators cannot possibly represent forty (40) MILLION people in any effective, equitable and meaningful manner as contemplated by the United States Constitution and Amendments thereto.

Since the end of the Civil War the United States has consistently strengthened its commitment to a representative form of self-governance by ratification of Constitutional Amendments and treaties designed to promote the people’s participation in governing at both the National and State levels. California’s refusal to increase its levels of legislative representation to reflect its exponential population growth is both arbitrary and unconstitutional.

As a consequence, the premise of the People’s right to participate in meaningful self-governance has been abandoned. California elections are effectively “purchased” by candidates who are in the service of the two major parties and no longer represent the people.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to return their representation to those principles contemplated by the founders for a representative republic, or in the alternative to sanction California for its brazen subjugation of the people’s right to govern themselves.”

You can read a copy of the entire lawsuit here.

The Lawsuit DID NOT Specifically Name the Members of the Oligarchy YET…

But, someone else has – The California Policy Center. They call it California’s “Deep State.” They say in an article by Ed Ring titled:

California’s Public Sector Union “Deep State”

“In the above diagram, at the center of it all are Public Unions. Immediately adjacent to them are the entities where they exercise the most influence, if not outright control – public education, state and local politicians and bureaucrats, and political consultants. Almost, but not entirely co-equal to these public unions are the corporate special interests, businesses that either depend directly on government contracts and subsidies for their prosperity, or businesses that depend heavily on a favorable legislative environment to survive.

Public sector unions in California collect and spend over $1.0 billion per year in dues. To the extent this money doesn’t flow directly into the pockets of politicians, political consultants and lobbyists, it goes to public relations firms, law firms, and academic institutions to engage in non-political public education. This soft money is heavily supplemented by funds coming from public entities and liberal oligarchs who support the same political agenda as the public unions.

The primary goal of the public sector union deep state is bigger government. Public sector unions thrive and grow by increasing their membership and increasing their dues revenue. This means more government programs is their first priority, while the value and benefit of government programs is a secondary priority. As a result, those elites that benefit from bigger government become junior partners to the public unions.


For example, public unions demand excessive pay, benefits and work rules that increase headcount. The impact this has on the financial sector is obvious. The increased cost of government creates budget deficits, which spells opportunities for bond underwriters. Pension formula enhancements create more business for pension funds and the powerful financial special interests who are clients of the pension systems.

How the public union deep state impacts the rest of the business sector is not quite as obvious, but equally detrimental to the interests of ordinary Californians. At the core of this is the synergy between the “green” lobby and the government unions. The green lobby opposes development of infrastructure on principle, the government unions want those funds for their pay and benefits. The business sector adapts to this reality, especially those businesses that benefit from politically contrived, artificial scarcity.

This would include public utilities, who operate on fixed profit percentages and therefore only make more money if they charge more expensive prices per unit – hence their alliance with the renewable energy industry. Developers who seek government grants for subsidized “low income” housing justify their appeals based on the unaffordable prices for homes and rentals. Proponents of high-speed rail and light rail benefit from the neglect of roads and freeways. Silicon Valley “green” entrepreneurs sell expensive internet enabled appliances that purportedly save the planet by consuming marginally less electricity and water.

Meanwhile, the teachers union and their cohorts on the faculties of public universities promote identity politics as the most compelling moral preoccupation a conscientious young idealist can possibly embrace. In their orbit, the grievance industry, the multi-lingual industry, the campus and community organizers and green activists all find a welcome home, and all of this provides a useful distraction from the reality: California’s public sector union deep state has elevated the cost-of-living to punitive levels in order to consolidate their own power and wealth.

The next time you hear the phrase “deep state,” know that it is alive and well. Right here in sunny California.”

The Bottom Line Here is Simple…

The intent of this lawsuit is to break the power of the oligarchs by forcing true representation on California – and there are options.

Is there reality here? Oh yeah…

If, for instance, the federal court forced California to develop a ratio of elected officials to population based on a comparison to North Dakota (One Senator to 16,105 people, and One Assemblyman to 8,052 people) then California (One Senator to 1,000,000 people, and One Assemblyman to 500,000 people) would be forced to increase State Senator Districts from 40 to 2,484. Assembly Districts would have to be increased from 80 to 4,968.

Just think how big a room they’d need just for ONE committee meeting.

You can see how ALL other States match up to California by looking at the chart here. As you will see, the liberal Democrats in California had figured out how to completely eliminate a Democracy – and they did it. The Obama-Nation would be proud…

The Lawsuit’s “Prayer” For Relief…

From the lawsuit itself comes the final words.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray the Court as follows:

1. The assigned trial Judge as soon as practicably possible alert the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit to convene a district court of three judges as required by 28 U.S.C. 2284(1).

2. Declare the existing apportionment and representative ratio of California’s legislative districts impair plaintiff’s’ right to participate in self-governance and abridge the value of individual plaintiffs’ votes as well as impairs their first Amendment rights.

3. Enter a permanent injunction and, if necessary, a preliminary injunction establishing statewide legislative districts in California in accordance with such plans as plaintiffs will submit to the Court; and enjoin the growth of the Representative Districts. This plan should include the creation of at least one Native American majority district.

4. Enter a permanent injunction and, if necessary, a preliminary injunction establishing a moratorium on the hiring of legislative assistants, who perform legislative functions.

5. Appoint a Special Master for determinations of population data for the Court to use.

6. Enter a decree sanctioning California pursuant U.S. Constitution Amendment 14, § 2.

7. Award plaintiffs’ attorney fees and reasonable costs incurred in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and other similar purposed statutes relevant to this action.

8. Order such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

So, What’s This “TRUMP’S US Supreme Court Will Preside Over the Breakup of California…” stuff?

28 U.S.C. 2284(1) is an interesting section of US law. It says:

(a) A district court of three judges shall be convened when otherwise required by Act of Congress, or when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body.
(b)In any action required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges under subsection (a) of this section, the composition and procedure of the court shall be as follows:
(1) Upon the filing of a request for three judges, the judge to whom the request is presented shall, unless he determines that three judges are not required, immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges, at least one of whom shall be a circuit judge. The judges so designated, and the judge to whom the request was presented, shall serve as members of the court to hear and determine the action or proceeding.
(2) If the action is against a State, or officer or agency thereof, at least five days’ notice of hearing of the action shall be given by registered or certified mail to the Governor and attorney general of the State.
(3) A single judge may conduct all proceedings except the trial, and enter all orders permitted by the rules of civil procedure except as provided in this subsection. He may grant a temporary restraining order on a specific finding, based on evidence submitted, that specified irreparable damage will result if the order is not granted, which order, unless previously revoked by the district judge, shall remain in force only until the hearing and determination by the district court of three judges of an application for a preliminary injunction. A single judge shall not appoint a master, or order a reference, or hear and determine any application for a preliminary or permanent injunction or motion to vacate such an injunction, or enter judgment on the merits. Any action of a single judge may be reviewed by the full court at any time before final judgment.

This provides for a very unique situation. It eliminates the State of California’s ability to STALL the proceedings, AND, any Appeal of this three-judge Court’s decision would GO DIRECTLY TO THE US SUPREME COURT. In short, California is screwed.
With this Three-Judge Panel It Would Be Possible For Other Groups to File Friend-Of-The-Court (Amicus) Briefs…

So, why not ask the panel to divide up California not into just TWO (Jefferson and California) States, but FOUR – each having their own specific interests?

If we just let the State of Jefferson go on its own, we here in the rest of California would STILL have a similar problem. So, let’s make this simple.

The FOUR States:

Jefferson – on the North – made up of 21 counties. The people there are the kind you want as neighbors.

California – made up of the long-suffering of ALL the areas outside of the liberal San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles complex.

Sodom – made up of the San Francisco Bay Area. The name is self-explanatory.

Gomorrah – made up of the Los Angeles complex, which includes Hollywood…

To each his own.

Stay tuned… http://bolenreport.com/trumps-us-supreme-court-will-preside-breakup-california/

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51    7 years ago

"

A recent lawsuit in the Golden State has brought attention to an interesting, and mostly ignored, problem: California is simply too large of a state.

Home to more than one in ten Americans, the nation’s most populous state also has a relatively small state legislature. Even though entitled to 53 members of the U.S. House, it only has 40 state senators – and therefore is the only state where there are legislators who represent larger districts than those of members of Congress.

The situation is not much better in the lower house, the Assembly. There, each of the chamber’s 80 members represent almost half a million residents.

The size of California’s legislature was set in 1862, and hasn’t changed since. At the time, the entire state had a population of just 420,000. That’s fewer people than a single assembly district today. Nationwide, the average state representative serves just under 60,000 people; and the average state senator is just shy of 160,000 constituents.

California’s massive legislative districts have attracted the ire of several voters in the more rural and northern part of the state, who argue the arrangement denies them and other Californians effective local representation. Thus they have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to compel California to increase its number of state representatives and senators.

As sympathetic as its arguments are, the lawsuit is a long shot. There is no clear rule in the federal constitution that speaks to the size of state legislative districts or the number of legislators. Instead, the only principle enforced by federal courts is the “one man, one vote” doctrine that legislative districts must be approximately equal in population, as California’s districts are.

But the lawsuit raises an enticing possibility: Has the time come to add more stars to Old Glory by breaking up the union’s biggest states?

Splitting Up States

Most discussions about potential new states, focus on the longstanding desires of America’s two most populous non-state territories: The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Statehood is a divisive question in Puerto Rico, however, and the status of the nation’s capital city raises complicated questions of sovereignty that could likely only be solved by constitutional amendment.

Creating new states out of existing ones, on the other hand, has a long history. The framers of the Constitution included a clause specifically allowing for it, with the consent of both Congress and the state or states concerned. Vermont, Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia were all carved out from existing states using this method.

Consent for West Virginia was, controversially, granted by the “restored” unionist government of Virginia during the height of the Civil War, but the legitimacy of that move has been long-settled. In each of the other cases, state legislatures responded to public demand by giving their consent, and Congress dutifully obliged. By exercise of democratic consent, America’s sovereign states can divide themselves, and sometimes they have.

Goldilocks States

Proposed movements to split existing states have a wide history; but not all such proposals have much chance of gaining traction. Adding a new member to the union requires not just the consent of the state being broken up, but also Congress, and Congress has usually had some broad principles in mind.

The first, and most important consideration, is population. As the United States expanded westward across the continent, Congress always required a minimum population before a territory could apply for statehood. Since becoming a state comes with two senators and at least one representative regardless of population, Congress is unlikely to ever approve a state less populous than the current 50thlargest, Wyoming (585,501 as of 2016). This also happens to be reasonably close to the size of the average U.S. House district, which is just over 700,000.

That rules out most of America’s territories outside of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, since the largest, Guam, has just under 160,000 residents. It also makes unlikely proposals like Superior, to make a new state from the upper peninsula of Michigan, or splitting a state like Colorado, which ranks 22nd in population of the states. The resulting states simply would not have enough people to justify the Constitution’s minimum federal representation.

The Big Five

Because of this aversion to low-population states, it is probable that only the nation’s largest and most populous states would be eligible for partition. Those also happen to be the states were movements for partition have been strongest, and a serious topic of debate over the years.

The five most-populated states and their 2016 population are, in order: California (39 million), Texas (27 million), Florida (20 million), New York (19 million), and Illinois (12 million). All are good potential candidates to carve out newer, smaller states.

California

California already hosts the oldest and most persistent partition movement, the would-be “State of Jefferson” that aspires to encompass far-northern California as well as adjacent parts of southern Oregon. There is also a persistent split between the central part of the state, centered around the Bay Area, and southern California centered around Los Angeles.

A recent proposal to split California into six states ended up failing and folding, largely because six was too ambitious a number, and the proposed borders too arbitrary. A state split into the three parts, however (with the northernmost possibly picking up part of Oregon) would neatly follow the existing political and cultural divisions.

Jefferson already has a suitable name, and several counties in the region have approved of it in referendums. There are many potential options for naming the other two; but for simplicity’s sake let’s call them North California and South California. Alternately, geographical features like “Sierra” or “Mojave” could provide each with a fresh start and a distinct identity.

Texas

Texas is unique in a lot of ways, but one of the most unusual is an obscure bit of trivia tucked into the joint resolution annexing the then-independent Republic of Texas in 1845. In order to sweeten the deal, Congress offered its pre-approval to for Texas to split itself into as many as five states.

Whether or not that offer still stands is unclear and debated among constitutional scholars. Texas has seen many partition proposals, but none ultimately overcame the state’s uniquely strong sense of identity.

The sprawling state encompasses many distinct regions; but the most common proposals have centered around the southwest portion of the state nearest the Mexican border. After the Civil War, it was briefly proposed to create a state named Lincoln from the parts of Texas between the Rio Grande and the Colorado River, roughly dividing the state in half.

A similar modern proposal, could perhaps result in a state of Rio Grande, extending from Brownsville to El Paso, and with its capital in San Antonio. The result would leave the more predominately Latino and Democratic parts of the state, free to govern themselves without being dominated by the rest of Texas’s overwhelming Republican supermajority.

Florida

Florida is another state where the cultural and political divide is stark between two regions: the predominantly conservative and Republican northern half of the state, versus the more Hispanic and Democratic south centered around Miami.

The idea of division has attracted enough support to be endorsed by county legislators in Ft. Lauderdale, and a handful of state legislators. It’s less clear where the border would be drawn. Which side would get Orlando, Tampa, and Cape Canaveral?

Central Florida is a culturally mixed region, politically purple, and home to some of the state’s most famous and valuable assets. While residents of the conservative panhandle on the one hand, and liberal Miami on the other, might relish being free of the other, there is no clear dividing line between them. Where exactly to draw the border, would probably end up being a contentious, and potentially unsolvable question.

If a fair border could be agreed upon, America’s most famous swing state might instead become one reliably red state and one reliably blue state. A repeat of the 2000 election fiasco, where a few hundred votes decided the state and thus the presidency, would be very unlikely.

New York

The Empire State has always housed two very distinct regions: the metropolis in and around New York City, and the rural bulk of the state’s landmass that has become known as Upstate New York.

On both sides of that divide, frustrations run high and proposals for a split have been persistent for decades. Upstaters chafe at the domination the city exercises by having the majority of the population, while residents of the five boroughs have little connection to places like Buffalo and Rochester.

If there is any metropolis that can make the case for its own statehood, it would be New York City’s eight million inhabitants. Extending that to include Long Island and the adjacent counties immediately north of the city, would push the population north of ten million.

Which half would get to keep the name “New York” could be debated, but to avoid confusion it would probably be best if that name stuck with the city that shares it. The rural rest of the state, perhaps picking a new name based on geography or the local Native American tribes, could govern itself without being overshadowed by the metropolitan neighbors. The state of Adirondack, or Mohawk, or Erie, or Hudson, could even put the question up to vote. After all, “upstate” would no longer work as a description.

Illinois

Illinois suffers from a similar dynamic as New York: a single dominating metropolis at one end, split from the predominantly rural and politically conservative rest of the state. Chicago’s sense of identity is drastically distinct from the rest of Illinois, to the degree that the city’s distinctive flag is a much more common sight on its streets than Illinois’s banner.

Partition already has a degree of perennial support, with legislators from both Chicago and “downstate” introducing bills to that effect in the legislature. The political calculus is obvious: Democrats who dominate Chicago could firmly control any new state built around it, and Republicans consigned to permanent minority status in southern and central Illinois would instead have a solidly red state to govern.

It’s not just politics, of course. There is a real social and cultural divide between diverse and cosmopolitan Chicago, and the vast stretches of small towns and farmland that occupy the rest of Illinois.

A recent survey even found that Illinois was the only state where a majority of its residents said they would move to a different state if they could. They might just have that option, without having to move at all. Like the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Illinois and Chicago could go through a velvet divorce that leaves both happier.

Two by two in the Senate

In the era before the Civil War, it was common practice to admit new free states and new slave states together in pairs, to maintain the precarious balance of power in the Senate. That is a practice that could be revived in the 21st Century, albeit in the much less troublesome context of partisan politics, instead of human bondage.

Past election results provide an easy and fairly reliable guide to guess the partisan tilt of any new state. Pairing likely-Republican and likely-Democratic states would be necessary to secure bipartisan buy-in at all levels of the decision, and solid majorities in favor in both the state and national legislatures.

The State of Jefferson, for example, would most likely give its two Senate seats as well as its electoral votes to the GOP. Splitting the rest of California in two, would produce two Democratic states from what had previously been one. Thus the net effect would be to add two Senators for both parties.

Florida currently has one Republican Senator and one Democratic Senator. A split state would, most likely, send two from each party, for a neutral net effect. This same calculations can be played out elsewhere. Two new Republican Senators from upstate New York, could balance two new Democratic Senators from southwest Texas.

That kind of partisan horse-trading might sound unseemly, but it could be the necessary grease to arrive at a good policy result: state governments that are more representative, effectively providing localized laboratories of democracy. More states means more experimentation, and a stronger sense of federalism across the country.

There’s nothing magic about 50 states and 100 senators. It’s more than time for us to reopen the political debate about state sizes. Admitting six new states into the union, for the first time since 1959, would solve a multitude of state problems without upsetting our current national political balance.

(Image of American flag with 56 stars by Hellerick, plus images from the 6 Californias initiative and a representation of the political leanings of the proposed new states.)

A three-judge panel has been ordered to consider the suit, but the state attorney general still thinks it should be tossed.
 
 

Supporters of the State of Jefferson are celebrating a hurdle in the lawsuit they’ve filed to form the would-be state, though California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has filed a motion to dismiss what he calls a flawed suit rooted in “conviction alone.”

The milestone in the lawsuit — filed in federal court in May — was judge Kimberly Mueller’s decision earlier this month to form a three-judge panel to hear the suit’s merits rather than simply toss it.

More: State of Jefferson runner shares road adventures

“That was very exciting for all of us,” said Terry Gherardi, an El Dorado County-based public information officer for Citizens for Fair Representation, the Jefferson nonprofit that filed the suit. “It’s pretty historic.”

It’s considered a victory not just because the move keeps the suit afloat, but means the Jefferson supporters can appeal to the Supreme Court if they’re shot down the first time around.

But that’s still what Becerra’s office is shooting for.

More: UPDATE: Jeffersonians to sue CA for 'dilution of vote'

 

“Plaintiffs’ goals are ambitious. Their convictions are strong. But conviction alone is not enough to gain them entrée to the federal court system,” Becerra wrote in his motion to dismiss.

 

The suit seeks to increase representation for far Northern California counties in the meantime, but plaintiffs also hope it will pave the way for them to solve the issue more dramatically: by forming Jefferson.

But Becerra argues that the suit asks the court to make a political decision rather than weigh existing law: How many representatives is enough?

More: Welcome to 'State of Jefferson': alternate 'Calexit'

 

Jefferson supporters argue the few representatives for northern counties violates citizens' rights. 

“The lobbyists and the unions own California and we intend to put the people back in charge of the government through smaller districts where it is cheap and easy to get rid of an incumbent who fails to serve the people. California has the worst representation ratio in the United States and we will prove that to be unconstitutional,” movement spokesman Mark Baird said in a press release.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for Sept. 8."

 
 
 
Squirrel!
Freshman Silent
link   Squirrel!    7 years ago

This article is an extreme SCREED of pure Horse Shit!

Is this kind of thing typical of this site?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Squirrel!   7 years ago

Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
link   Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Squirrel!   7 years ago

Yes. The door is over there . 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
link   pat wilson  replied to  Cerenkov   7 years ago

Yes. The door is over there . 

Don't let it hit ya where the good lord split ya.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  pat wilson   7 years ago

We are not moving. We are simply moving the northern border of California well to the south of where it is now.  Don't you like my pics of part of beautiful Jefferson, USA 🇺🇸 in my avatar? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Squirrel!   7 years ago

Is this kind of thing typical of this site?

Only of this particular poster. Sad, huh?

 
 
 
Squirrel!
Freshman Silent
link   Squirrel!  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

Sad, huh?

Yes,  I will have to try harder to avoid these kinds of articles.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
link   sandy-2021492  replied to  Squirrel!   7 years ago

I like being able to hover over an article's title to see who seeded it on NV.  I miss that here.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492   7 years ago

Why?  You already when you go to the topic say news and politics and you see the icon, article title, number of replies and most recent post.  What more do you want?  If you go to newest comments you see avatar and who made the comment.  Where could you click on a seeded article not knowing who seeded it?  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
link   sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

What more do you want?

To be able to see, no matter where I'm accessing the link from, who seeded the article.  Some I would skip, based on who's seeding. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492   7 years ago

I'm curious as to where it is that you can access a seed from and not know who seeded it?  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
link   sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

I'd like to know before I click.  If I see something on the front page, I can see who's commenting on it, but I can't see who seeded it.  Yes, once I click, I know who seeded it.  Sometimes, based on who's doing the seeding, I'd skip the click.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492   7 years ago

So the name of who seeded iris more important to you than what it's about?  

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov    7 years ago

Secession is a clear right.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Cerenkov   7 years ago

From a state within the union, it clearly is.  Calexit is another matter.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
link   Gordy327    7 years ago

The whole breaking up CA into 2 states is nothing but a pipe dream. Not even half the counties in CA support such an absurd idea. But hey, the one's that do can keep dreaming.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Gordy327   7 years ago

I agree. It's never going to happen, but on the other hand it does give him a hobby and keeps him off from the streets at night. Sort of like after school basketball programs.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

Well, DC and Puerto Rico will never become states without some sort of compromise like mentioned in the 1st post after the seed.  No One is going to accept 4 New Democrat senators.  The splitting of Florida, New York, Illinois, Texas into two states and California into three would even up the senate and have little net effect on the electoral college as GOP gains in NY Illinois offset by democrat gains in Texas and Florida.  

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
link   321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

No One is going to accept 4 New Democrat senators.

So the US government is going to have 51 states instead ?

LOL ! 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   7 years ago

I'm suggesting we will leverage the aspirations of DC and Puerto Rico for statehood to achieve it for rural areas of Florida, New York, Illinois, and California as well while giving liberal section of Texas its statehood too.  We may never win statehood on our own but we may leverage it if other people's statehood depends in part on us getting ours. It's called horse trading.  

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
link   321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

Good luck, or you could do like I did 40 years ago, Move to where there's life ! 

I was born and grew up in a small town in central ill. I knew IF I ever wanted a decent life it wasn't going to be there, no money and no indication that was ever going to change.

Cornfields and baseball fields dont make for a thriving economy and probably never will. I left at 18 and have had a very fruitful and fulfilling life.  I have family still there, still waiting for the government to fix their world. So Sad !

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   7 years ago

Same here. I moved. To California! And we will not allow a break up of the State. It can not happen without the approval of the rest of the State and that will not happen. Still, it is entertaining to watch. Laugh

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

The three state model is doable as there are north south tensions as well as east west and the inland empire and the Bay Area for different reasons would love to be free of LA(lousy area).  Those opposing the break up of California will effectively deny Puerto Rico and D.C. statehood over the senate issue.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
link   Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

California is a state. Puerto Rico is not. Statehood is not transferable to territories by other states. If Puerto Rico applies for statehood, there is a due process for that. Not for breaking up existing states. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327   7 years ago

There is no process for accepting P.R.  Or D.C.  and adding 4 democrat US senators.  We will block that in perpetuity without trade offs.  Since there are no other territories with statehood potential, the balancing will have to come from existing states.  Or no statehood for those two.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
link   Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

Puerto Rico has statehood potential,  as a commonwealth. So there is a system in place to accept or reject a candidate for statehood. Whether it would become a state or not is rather irrelevant. And rejecting a candidate for statehood simply because you don't get your very own state is akin to a child throwing a tantrum when they don't get their way. Especially since it has nothing to do with you.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327   7 years ago

As if democrats would let two republican would be states with 4 senators and automatic GOP electoral college outcomes into the union without getting sonething in return.  They wouldn't and we won't let the reverse happen either.  Democrats would get  P.R., a state in Texas, an extra state in California , and an automatic half of Florida while the GOP would get the other automatic half of Florida, up state NY, Illinois sans Chicago metro area, and Jefferson. 

 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

Then there's the court case over representation.  The idea that each state  senator represents 1,000,000 people and each assembly person 500,000 when compared to other states is unreasonable.  If we prevail and have say 200,000 and 100,000 respectively it would make California have the same number of assembly members as New Hampshire has now, 400.  If we had four assembly districts for each senate one, at 400,000 per senator we'd have 100.   Smaller districts would make it harder to cram disparate people into the same district.  We may get more fair representation via the courts and if the court rules well we may well end the Jefferson movement.  

 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
link   Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

In other words, you're whining because you're not getting your way. So your solution is to leave and form your own club. It's like a child whining "I'm not playing anymore" when they don't get their way in a game.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
link   Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

You have representation,  the same as everyone else. If you don't like it, that's your problem. It seems you think you should get special consideration or treatment over everyone else. Sorry, but you're not that special! 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327   7 years ago

We are special enough to fight them in court over unfairness in representation.  Who knows, if we win that case big enough they will want us gone so they don't have to follow the courts ruling as applied to us.  

 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
link   Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

How is it unfair? The same standard of representation applies to you as everyone else. You simply want more than anyone else, which is unfair. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327   7 years ago

What we really want is a return to having state senates following the US Senate model instead of being a slightly more exclusive version of the assembly.  Short of that we want for the state to have more than 40 senators and more than 80 assembly seats for 40,000,000 people.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
link   Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

What you want doesnt matter, nor does anyone care. You get the same as everyone else. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327   7 years ago
And we still would after the court case.  Assembly and senate districts are way too big to adequately and fairly represent everyone or anyone.  If districts represented fifty thousand and 100,000 instead of 500,000 and 1,000,000 we'd all have much more responsive representation.  Other states have districts representing far fewer people each than Californication does.
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
link   Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

Like I said, you just want more than anyone else. Especially since you feel like you're not getting your way. It's childish whining. Representation is applied to you equally as it is for everyone else. If you don't like it, then you can go to a different district if you think that will result in greater representation.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327   7 years ago

We will see how it works out in court.  If we win we would all still have the same sized assembly districts and likely senate too.  If we don't win, the movement for the state of Jefferson continues forward on its own and in concert with any other state that wants a split or any territory or district desiring statehood.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
link   Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

Calling it a movement is giving it too much credit.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327   7 years ago

How would you know?  I actually live here.  I see all the Jefferson signs along northstste highways and in our cities on signs and fences.  I'm one of many that has a Jefferson XX decal on my rear bumper.  Pickups drive around with a USA and a Jefferson flag.  They've tried to market California caps and shirts in the various stores and tourist areas around here but the shelves don't sell out.  We have absolutely no loyalty to the state of California and consider it to be an occupying entity.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
link   Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

How would you know?

Because nothing will actually come from it. But, it's your time to waste.

We have absolutely no loyalty to the state of California and consider it to be an occupying entity

California was there before you. Don't like it? You're free to leave it then.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327   7 years ago

That's what we're trying to do!  Leave California without moving by moving it out of here.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
link   Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

Leave California without moving by moving it out of here.  

Too bad you can't take it with you!

 
 
 
Dowser
Sophomore Quiet
link   Dowser    7 years ago

May I interject one little fact in here?  Northern California has water and southern California does not.  The entire state must deal with a water budget that is heavily weighed toward one end of the state.  And it takes ALL of the state's resources to meet the water needs of the entire state.  The transfer of water supplies from one end to the other is the result.

I doubt that southern California is going to sit idly by and watch the northern half make off with their water supplies.

Already, water is piped from one watershed into the watershed next door, and on down the line to meet the needs of the thirsty southern counties.  It requires a state-wide authority to do that efficiently and well.  

I just can't see the two splitting up-- if only because of the water supplies, or lack thereof.

 
 

Who is online




89 visitors