• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Split California into six states?

There is a case Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

Of course you can have anything you can win via force of arms. That's been the story time after time throughout human history, and the fact that a judge recognized it doesn't legitimize it.

Consent of the states essentially means it would take a Constitutional Amendment to let a State out of the union. If you read the rest of the paragraph you're quoting out of:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.

Barring an Amendment (of which there have been exactly 17 past the original Bill of Rights in all 225 years since the ratification of the Constitution) or a civil war (how'd that turn out, by the way?), there will be no secession. Put up or shut up.
 
Of course you can have anything you can win via force of arms. That's been the story time after time throughout human history, and the fact that a judge recognized it doesn't legitimize it.

Consent of the states essentially means it would take a Constitutional Amendment to let a State out of the union. If you read the rest of the paragraph you're quoting out of:



Barring an Amendment (of which there have been exactly 17 past the original Bill of Rights in all 225 years since the ratification of the Constitution) or a civil war (how'd that turn out, by the way?), there will be no secession. Put up or shut up.



It wouldn't take an amendment, just a legislative branch sympathetic to the cause. The legislative branch has the power to cut up a territory any way they see fit. After all Maine was once part of Massachusetts and West Virginia was once part of Virginia. If the representation of the northern counties of California were sympathetic to their constituents to become separated from the state of California, if the deck is stacked just right in Congress it could happen. Understand the public opinion on such a thing seems to be growing in favor of and there are Constitutional scholars that are making a very good argument for such a thing to occur. Cheers!
 
It wouldn't take an amendment, just a legislative branch sympathetic to the cause. The legislative branch has the power to cut up a territory any way they see fit. After all Maine was once part of Massachusetts and West Virginia was once part of Virginia. If the representation of the northern counties of California were sympathetic to their constituents to become separated from the state of California, if the deck is stacked just right in Congress it could happen. Understand the public opinion on such a thing seems to be growing in favor of and there are Constitutional scholars that are making a very good argument for such a thing to occur. Cheers!

For a State to secede it would absolutely require a Constitutional amendment. Refer to the very case you cited.

For a state to divide itself up it would require both the consent of that state's legislature and Congress. Rearrangements of territories involving the merging of states or the creation of new ones would require the consent of the legislatures of all states involved and Congress.

No such alteration -- either to combine states or create new ones from existing states -- can take place without the consent of Congress.
 
For a State to secede it would absolutely require a Constitutional amendment. Refer to the very case you cited.

For a state to divide itself up it would require both the consent of that state's legislature and Congress. Rearrangements of territories involving the merging of states or the creation of new ones would require the consent of the legislatures of all states involved and Congress.

No such alteration -- either to combine states or create new ones from existing states -- can take place without the consent of Congress.

The difference Dan is the territory isn't requesting to secede from the Union so in that instance an Amendment isn't needed. It didn't take an amendment to separate West Virginia from Virginia nor did it take an Amendment to separate Maine from Massachusetts.
 
The difference Dan is the territory isn't requesting to secede from the Union so in that instance an Amendment isn't needed. It didn't take an amendment to separate West Virginia from Virginia nor did it take an Amendment to separate Maine from Massachusetts.

Right, because that isn't secession. That simply required the consent of the legislatures involved and Congress -- just lke I said.

That doesn't make it any more possible -- I think there will be enough opposition to California going from 2 Senators to 12 to stop the process dead in its tracks.
 
Right, because that isn't secession. That simply required the consent of the legislatures involved and Congress -- just lke I said.

That doesn't make it any more possible -- I think there will be enough opposition to California going from 2 Senators to 12 to stop the process dead in its tracks.

A lot of our conflict seems to be over the definition of secession. If a portion of a state desires to break away from the existing state to make a new state is secession. Secession does not always apply to breaking away from the Union.

For the Legislative Branch to deal with California in the same way it did with Virginia and Massachusetts some claim it would require the consent of the state in question. However, when Massachusetts divided it was by consent. When Virginia divided was part of the Confederacy and did not give their consent.
 
A lot of our conflict seems to be over the definition of secession. If a portion of a state desires to break away from the existing state to make a new state is secession. Secession does not always apply to breaking away from the Union.

Aside from the fact that I don't think a state splitting in two is an accurate use of the term, the word carries a great deal of charge from the Civil War. I do not think it is wise to use it for anything less weighty than a state trying to leave the union.

For the Legislative Branch to deal with California in the same way it did with Virginia and Massachusetts some claim it would require the consent of the state in question. However, when Massachusetts divided it was by consent. When Virginia divided was part of the Confederacy and did not give their consent.

Er, no, West Virginia's creation was more complicated than that. The division was done with the consent of the legislature recognized by the United States government as the legitimate government of Virginia. This was a legislature consisting of delegates appointed by the counties which didn't particularly feel like rebelling against the union. Had the previously recognized government of Virginia not opted to rebel, their consent would have been required in order to create West Virginia, as with any other state.
 
Aside from the fact that I don't think a state splitting in two is an accurate use of the term, the word carries a great deal of charge from the Civil War. I do not think it is wise to use it for anything less weighty than a state trying to leave the union.



Er, no, West Virginia's creation was more complicated than that. The division was done with the consent of the legislature recognized by the United States government as the legitimate government of Virginia. This was a legislature consisting of delegates appointed by the counties which didn't particularly feel like rebelling against the union. Had the previously recognized government of Virginia not opted to rebel, their consent would have been required in order to create West Virginia, as with any other state.

Whatever Dan, okay you don't like the term secession used only in the way you think it is proper. Got it. And as far as Virginia goes, you just proved the division was done on the sly. Have a good evening.
 
Whatever Dan, okay you don't like the term secession used only in the way you think it is proper. Got it. And as far as Virginia goes, you just proved the division was done on the sly. Have a good evening.

No, not really, but whatever makes you happy.
 
They probably wouldn't.

Which just goes to show the national government has far too much power.

That's a power that was defined explicitly in the original Constitution. It is not a power born out of the gradual expansion of power that has been going on for the past 120+ years.
 
Yes, this is something actually being proposed:

[h=1]Lyles: California solution – Divide by six[/h]


Dividing California would affect the entire nation. For one thing, there would be 110 senators. For another, some of the new states would be red states, as SF would no longer dominate the politics of the entire state. Had the state been split before the last election, Obama would not have had all of the electors of the State of California, and Romney could well be the president today.

What do you think? Idiocy, or possibility?

I think it's both, idiocy and possibility. It's basically nothing more than partisan gerrymandering on steroids, carving out GOP districts into their own states, thereby giving them extra clout in presidential elections. However, it would also resolve the intense stupidity of the entire state being run by extreme left-wing democrats who are hell bent on erasing the border between California and Mexico, allowing foreign nationals free reign inside the state, access to state taxpayer money and educational benefits, and even freaking drivers licenses.

This is why I despise both of the major political parties, and adjust my vote to keep either from gaining a tyrannical majority. Depending upon where the new state lines are arranged, I might support breaking the state into separate states... but not just a winding, roundabout manner of carving out GOP districts for autonomy and leaving the rest of us dangling in the wind.

Bottom line, many counties in this state are basically poor, with few resources and counting on the economic riches of L.A., San Diego, San Francisco and the Silicon Valley to keep them afloat. This, like just about everything else nowadays, would probably end up with an "I'm gonna get mine, to hell with you" mentality, which I couldn't support.
 
Yes, this is something actually being proposed:

[h=1]Lyles: California solution – Divide by six[/h]


Dividing California would affect the entire nation. For one thing, there would be 110 senators. For another, some of the new states would be red states, as SF would no longer dominate the politics of the entire state. Had the state been split before the last election, Obama would not have had all of the electors of the State of California, and Romney could well be the president today.

What do you think? Idiocy, or possibility?

If the people of california want to split into smaller states, I can't find any reason to oppose them doing so.
 
Yes, this is something actually being proposed:

[h=1]Lyles: California solution – Divide by six[/h]


Dividing California would affect the entire nation. For one thing, there would be 110 senators. For another, some of the new states would be red states, as SF would no longer dominate the politics of the entire state. Had the state been split before the last election, Obama would not have had all of the electors of the State of California, and Romney could well be the president today.

What do you think? Idiocy, or possibility?

And then New York state to be divided, too. At the red upstate and blue New York City. But the best, enclose New York City by wall, like in the movie "Escape from New York" and do not let anyone out, that would not spread the infection in the country.
 
If the people of california want to split into smaller states, I can't find any reason to oppose them doing so.

I certainly feel that way. It is getting to the point in some of these states like California where folks are losing their livelihood over feckless regulations/taxation unfriendly to business causing many to lose their jobs. Last I checked the beneficiary of the exodus of jobs from California was Texas. It's making a lot of Californians poor/oppressed. Same thing is happening in Illinois. They have become so anti-business that they are losing their best and brightest to states that are more business friendly. I just saw a new ad for NY offering companies that move there 10 years tax free. A state doesn't do something to that extent unless it is to make a quick correction out of desperation to bring in needed jobs.
 
Yeah I am aware of the legal stuff and was simply fooling arround.

At first I really thought that the above poster suggested that the US government could simply splitt up states whenever they falt like it.

If you look at the history of West Virginia, there was no state of West Virginia before the American Civil War.

In 1861, 50 counties in N/W Virginia broke away (seceded) from the state of Virginia and the sovereign Confederate States of America. It was in 1863 that the newly formed West Virginia was admitted into the Union.

I suppose counties could break away from the Peoples Republic of California, but that wouldn't automatically make them states, probably just territories of the United States. Only Congress can admit a state territory into the Union.
 
If you look at the history of West Virginia, there was no state of West Virginia before the American Civil War.

In 1861, 50 counties in N/W Virginia broke away (seceded) from the state of Virginia and the sovereign Confederate States of America. It was in 1863 that the newly formed West Virginia was admitted into the Union.

I suppose counties could break away from the Peoples Republic of California, but that wouldn't automatically make them states, probably just territories of the United States. Only Congress can admit a state territory into the Union.

interesting. Don't people who live in territories get some kind of break from federal taxes?
 
interesting. Don't people who live in territories get some kind of break from federal taxes?

I believe they do.

Sorry for using Wikipedia as a source but I'm involved right now watching football and just plain lazy today.

>" Though the Commonwealth government has its own tax laws, Puerto Ricans are also required to pay most U.S. federal taxes,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] with the major exception being that some residents do not have to pay the federal personal income tax. In 2009, Puerto Rico paid $3.742 billion into the US Treasury.[9] Residents of Puerto Rico pay into Social Security, and are thus eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. However, they are excluded from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the island actually receives a small fraction of the Medicaid funding it would receive if it were a U.S. state.[10] Also, Medicare providers receive less-than-full state-like reimbursements for services rendered to beneficiaries in Puerto Rico, even though the latter paid fully into the system.[11]

The federal taxes paid by Puerto Rico residents include import/export taxes,[12] Federal commodity taxes,[13] social security taxes,[14] among others. Residents also pay Federal payroll taxes, such as Social Security[15] and Medicare taxes.[16]

Only certain Puerto Ricans are required to file federal income tax forms. According to the Internal Revenue Service:

In general, United States citizens and resident aliens who are bona fide residents of Puerto Rico during the entire tax year, which for most individuals is January 1 to December 31, are only required to file a U.S. federal income tax return if they have income sources outside of Puerto Rico or if they are employees of the U.S. government. Bona fide residents of Puerto Rico generally do not report income received from sources within Puerto Rico on their U.S. income tax return. However, they should report all income received from sources outside Puerto Rico on their U.S. income tax return. Residents of Puerto Rico who are employed by the government of the United States or who are members of the armed forces of the United States also should report all income received for their services to the government of the United States on their U. S. income tax return.

United States citizens or resident aliens who are not bona fide residents of Puerto Rico during the entire tax year are required to report all income from whatever source derived on their U.S. income tax return. However, a U.S. citizen who changes residence from Puerto Rico to the United States and who was a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico at least two years before changing residence can exclude from U.S. taxable income the Puerto Rican source income received while residing in Puerto Rico during the taxable year of such change of residence. [17]

Bona fide residents of Puerto Rico cannot claim deductions and/or credits allocable to or chargeable against Puerto Rican source income that is excluded from a U.S. tax return. The deductions and credits not attributable to specific income must be divided between excluded income from sources in Puerto Rico and income from all other sources to find the part that can be deducted or credited on a U.S. tax return. Examples of deductions not attributable to specific income include alimony, the standard deduction, and certain itemized deductions such as medical expenses, charitable contributions, and real estate taxes and mortgage interest on your personal residence. Personal exemptions are generally allowed in full..."<

Taxation in Puerto Rico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then you have the U.S. Territory of Guam.
Yes this is the same Guam that liberals are afraid that may tip over and sink into the sea if to many people are on the island.

A better source.

Guam Tax Structure

>"The U.S. Congress created the Territorial Government of Guam as a separate taxing jurisdiction by enactment of the Organic Act of Guam in 1950. Section 31 of the Act provides that the income tax laws in force in the United States shall be the income tax laws of Guam, substituting Guam for the United States where necessary and omitting any inapplicable or incompatible provisions. The U.S. Internal Revenue Code with such changes constitutes the Guam Territorial Income Tax Law..."<

Personal and Corporate Income Tax

>" 1.Bona fide residents of Guam are subject to special U.S. tax rules. In general, all individuals with income from Guam will file only one return—either to Guam or the United States.

If you are a bona fide resident of Guam during the entire tax year, file your return with Guam. This applies to all bona fide residents who are citizens, resident aliens, or nonresident aliens of the United States.

For more information, see Publication 570, Tax Guide for Individuals with Income from U.S. Possessions, or Publication 54, Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad.

2.Guam corporations are subject to income tax on their income from all sources. Other corporations doing business on Guam incur income tax liabilities to Guam on all Guam source income. Corporations not engaged in business on Guam are liable to a 30% tax on certain types of income from Guam sources. The tax rates for corporations doing business on Guam can be found in Section 11 of the Guam Territorial Income Tax Law.

3.Filing dates of Income Tax Returns are as follows:

a. Individual income tax returns for the calendar year are due on or before April 15 of the following year. Individuals reporting on a fiscal year basis must file their returns on the 15th day of the fourth month following the close of the fiscal year. When the due date for doing any act for tax purposes -- filing a return, paying taxes, etc. -- falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, you may do that act on the next business day.

b. Corporations are required to file an income tax return for the calendar year on or before March 15 of the following year. Corporations on a fiscal year basis must file income tax return on the 15th day of the third month following the close of the fiscal year. "<

https://www.guamtax.com/info/structure.html
 
In general, United States citizens and resident aliens who are bona fide residents of Puerto Rico during the entire tax year, which for most individuals is January 1 to December 31, are only required to file a U.S. federal income tax return if they have income sources outside of Puerto Rico or if they are employees of the U.S. government. Bona fide residents of Puerto Rico generally do not report income received from sources within Puerto Rico on their U.S. income tax return.

That's what I thought.

I can see it now, a new US territory made up of Northern California and Southern Oregon, both sparsely populated areas, with it's own tax laws, no income taxes.

Let's do it. I think I'll move there.
 
The whole idea is a good one. SF, Oakland, San Jose, Santa Cruz and the rest of the radical left are all bundled into one, and will get to keep boxer and the criminal DiFi, and the other 5 states will have a viable chance at normalcy. Hence the leftist will cry foul and never let it happen.
 
That's a power that was defined explicitly in the original Constitution. It is not a power born out of the gradual expansion of power that has been going on for the past 120+ years.

Wrong interpretation of my statement. My point was the fact that the other states wouldn't allow their Senate seats to become less powerful is evidence of the fact that the national government has become too powerful itself and, as a consequence, states are desperate to hold on to as much of it as they can.
 
Wrong interpretation of my statement. My point was the fact that the other states wouldn't allow their Senate seats to become less powerful is evidence of the fact that the national government has become too powerful itself and, as a consequence, states are desperate to hold on to as much of it as they can.

You're right, I did misinterpret what you said. My apologies.

Honestly, I don't think it's a function of the power of the national government leading the states to clamor to hold on to what they have, I think it's got more to do with human nature. You add an Alaska or a Hawaii -- new territory, strategic value, resources and so on -- and it makes sense that they get 2 senators apiece like everyone else. You take an existing territory like California, split it into multiple pieces, they each get 2 senators, and the union gets ... nothing in return.

In other words, California would get its sociopolitical house in order, the influence of the region would increase dramatically, and the rest of the country would see no benefit.

That's why I suggested an internal restructuring. :)
 
And then New York state to be divided, too. At the red upstate and blue New York City. But the best, enclose New York City by wall, like in the movie "Escape from New York" and do not let anyone out, that would not spread the infection in the country.


Or not let the infection in? :2razz: wall works both ways
 
Back
Top Bottom