Ballot Initiative to Split California into 3 States Nixed by Supreme Court

[LAGC]

The California Supreme Court decided unanimously Wednesday to remove from the November ballot a measure aimed at dividing California into three states.

The decision was a defeat for Tim Draper, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist considered an eccentric entrepreneur who spent $1.2 million on the measure.

Four years ago, the wealthy Atherton resident spent $5.2 million promoting a measure that would have split California into six states. It did not qualify for the ballot.

He reacted angrily to the court’s action, calling it “corruption.”

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...718-story.html



Looks like the powers-that-be aren't going to allow conservatives in California to go their own way.

The Democrats retain their iron grip on the entire state -- for now.

[T2K]

The new response from leftists to stop "Brexit" type votes: "you're not allowed to vote on that because reasons"

[N/A]

It seems that if they voted to split in any way, then they all would be new "States", and the other 49 States would have to vote to allow the old State to withdraw from the Union, and then vote to admit, or not, the new States to the Union.

Could be quite the cluster f*** on them, ending up out of the Union, and out of the Federal largesse, but the Union still owning all Federal land in the no longer States. Kinda like Cuba and Gitmo, only the Feds wouldn't have to pay rent.
Imagine being a small sovereign and most of your highways belong to the now foreign USA...who begins to turn them all into toll roads to pay for upkeep.
Plus coming up with all new fiat currency that no foreign government will accept.

Yep, it would be quite a circle jerk.

[T2K]

The vote wouldn't have made CA into separate states. It was, as I understand it, a vote to determine if that was the course CA should embark on (the Constitution establishes the process for new states).

[N/A]

The vote wouldn't have made CA into separate states. It was, as I understand it, a vote to determine if that was the course CA should embark on (the Constitution establishes the process for new states).

I'm not sure I remember that in the Constitution. Obviously it happens, but not overtly stated, is it?

[Gunreference1]

I'm not sure I remember that in the Constitution. Obviously it happens, but not overtly stated, is it?

Is this what you're looking for? Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 -

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."


Steve

[N/A]

Ok, thanks.

[5.56NATO]

More and more will flee regions of corruption to real America, like this gentleman;
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...yor-his-family

[tank_monkey]

Is this what you're looking for? Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 -

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."


Steve

Thanks! That was informative. Frankly the carving out was stupid. It was designed to make THREE more blue states because each segment had a huge liberal cit/population center in it to muscle out all the normal votes. I would want a section where we split away from the ultra blue population centers of the coastline and let them have their own ultra ultra libtard utopia and carve off the rest of California where it's actually RED STATE. I'd move there and still be close enough to still work in my field.