Yet another reason why California should secede. Washington's bullying tactics and outdated laws coupled with the IRS's shortsighted tax laws are counter productive California's innovative culture.
Get a grip on yourself.
Going by their policy history, and business & cultural climate, I'd rather have California rule that Virginia/DC rule.
There is no viable path what-so-ever for California to secede from the Union. Read the damn Constitution. It does not provide for secession of a state from the Union, only joining the Union. There is also no currently viable path for the Electoral College to be replaced with direct election of the President either. Again, read the Constitution on what it takes to amend it. An amendment requires a two thirds majority in both the House and the Senate. Then three fourths of State Legislatures must approve or a Constitutional Convention called which has never happened in modern times. There is NO constitutional path to secession other than by force, meaning a second Civil War and California doesn’t have an army. And it doesn’t matter how many Californians sign a petition to secede. Such a petition is meaningless and carries no legal weight. Californians do not get to decide or vote on seceding from the United States.
So quit daydreaming about such nonsense and work to change things in Washington. It’s the only way.
Actually, since secession isn't explicitly addressed by the Constitution, there is a good case, one might even say "ironclad", for it being up to the individual States, via the 10th Amendment.
Yet another reason why California should secede. Washington's bullying tactics and outdated laws coupled with the IRS's shortsighted tax laws are counter productive California's innovative culture.
Get a grip on yourself.
Going by their policy history, and business & cultural climate, I'd rather have California rule that Virginia/DC rule.
There is no viable path what-so-ever for California to secede from the Union. Read the damn Constitution. It does not provide for secession of a state from the Union, only joining the Union.
I imagine there were, at that time, people who thought and said the same thing about seceding from Great Britain.
Not to be picky, well I guess I am, but to secede versus to betray ones own country in revolt are slightly, albeit subtly different IMHO.
tallest skil said: That needs to be expanded. Given the US population, the House should have nearly 1000 representatives at this point.
Redrawing district lines is controversial enough on the small scale that occurs now. I can't imagine the upheaval that would ensue if every district had to be redrawn all at once. There is no gradual transitional or equitable means of expanding the seats in the house, at least none that I can think of. That's probably why it has remained at 435 for so long. Nobody wants to touch that topic because it would be an absolute nightmare.
Yet another reason why California should secede. Washington's bullying tactics and outdated laws coupled with the IRS's shortsighted tax laws are counter productive California's innovative culture.
From the text of this story: "The company said it received between 5,750 and 5,999 national security orders in general during the second half of 2016..."
Gee... that period of vastly increased national security orders was during Obama's tenure and while Congress was majority held by Democrats.
Redrawing district lines is controversial enough on the small scale that occurs now.
Not an argument at all. “It would be hard” is one of the more common excuses for not passing (and not repealing) a bunch of (illegal) legislation that this country needs (to be rid of), and that’s complete and utter fucking bullshit bordering on sedition. “Gerrymandering exists, therefore we shouldn’t follow the law or intent of the Constitution” isn’t remotely a valid thing to say.
I can't imagine the upheaval that would ensue if every district had to be redrawn all at once.
We did it in the past. Back before computers, even. So amend the Constitution and end this fucking nightmare.
Congressional District Amendment No longer shall Congressional districts be redrawn by sitting state representatives, nor shall they be redrawn under any circumstance other than an official change in population–as defined by the United States Census–of the corresponding districts in the respective states. Congressional districts shall henceforth be redrawn in a manner according to the mathematical Golden Ratio, where physically applicable within the bounds of state geometry. The center of the smallest district shall be situated in the center of the most populous city in the state at time of ratification and henceforth from the time of finalization of the most recent census. Expansion outward from the first district follows the mathematical Golden Ratio accordingly. New districts formed due to a change in population shall be created by halving the size of the district in which said population has changed.
There is no gradual transitional or equitable means of expanding the seats in the house, at least none that I can think of.
It’s definitionally equitable. The number increases but the proportion granted to the states remains the same. You just get more districts. Stop letting our servants (government, remember, serves us, not the other way around) dictate to us who we’re grouped with. Let our very existence (and the mathematical lines drawn therefrom) decide it.
In so doing, the court is acquiescing to the Legislative and Executive branches, rather than serving the adversarial role the Founders envisioned. This is not the first time the Courts have done so, with such abridgment of the Bill of Rights going back well over a century, so it's hardly a surprise. The surprise is that the American people continue to tolerate it.
Give me a break. Your lack of understanding of a "compelling interest" is pretty lame. Go back, study up and when you understand a lot more return and we may have something to talk about.
BTW, I did not vote for Trump and think he is the worst disease this country have ever experienced and my guess is every who did vote for him would call me a liberal.
Yet another reason why California should secede. Washington's bullying tactics and outdated laws coupled with the IRS's shortsighted tax laws are counter productive California's innovative culture.
Get a grip on yourself.
Going by their policy history, and business & cultural climate, I'd rather have California rule that Virginia/DC rule.
There is no viable path what-so-ever for California to secede from the Union. Read the damn Constitution. It does not provide for secession of a state from the Union, only joining the Union. There is also no currently viable path for the Electoral College to be replaced with direct election of the President either. Again, read the Constitution on what it takes to amend it. An amendment requires a two thirds majority in both the House and the Senate. Then three fourths of State Legislatures must approve or a Constitutional Convention called which has never happened in modern times. There is NO constitutional path to secession other than by force, meaning a second Civil War and California doesn’t have an army. And it doesn’t matter how many Californians sign a petition to secede. Such a petition is meaningless and carries no legal weight. Californians do not get to decide or vote on seceding from the United States.
So quit daydreaming about such nonsense and work to change things in Washington. It’s the only way.
Actually, since secession isn't explicitly addressed by the Constitution, there is a good case, one might even say "ironclad", for it being up to the individual States, via the 10th Amendment.
The stronger case though has nothing to do with the constitution. It has to with the moral proposition that none of us is perpetually bound to one another by force. That would be akin to slavery. The very idea that some group or faction of people could not separate from some other group or faction of people goes against the very core idea of liberty.
It's interesting that so many people who think none of the states (or some other defined group of people) have a right to secede fail to recall that secession is exactly how the U.S. was born in the first place.
Funny thing is that people from both ends of the spectrum are supportive of it elsewhere in the world.
But should the rest of the nation have a voice in the process? That is, in case of a referendum, would it only be for California residents or the entire nation?
I only mention this as it is one of the hypothetical questions under debate in my part of the world.
The stronger case though has nothing to do with the constitution. It has to with the moral proposition that none of us is perpetually bound to one another by force. That would be akin to slavery. The very idea that some group or faction of people could not separate from some other group or faction of people goes against the very core idea of liberty.
It's interesting that so many people who think none of the states (or some other defined group of people) have a right to secede fail to recall that secession is exactly how the U.S. was born in the first place.
Funny thing is that people from both ends of the spectrum are supportive of it elsewhere in the world.
But should the rest of the nation have a voice in the process? That is, in case of a referendum, would it only be for California residents or the entire nation?
I only mention this as it is one of the hypothetical questions under debate in my part of the world.
No, that's what designr is saying. Nobody gets to tell you who with whom you must associate. If Californians decide they don't want to associate with the rest of us, the rest of us don't get to tell them "you must."
Comments
Actually, since secession isn't explicitly addressed by the Constitution, there is a good case, one might even say "ironclad", for it being up to the individual States, via the 10th Amendment.
(full disclosure Ex Brit now dual Brit/ American)
Gee... that period of vastly increased national security orders was during Obama's tenure and while Congress was majority held by Democrats.
Not an argument at all. “It would be hard” is one of the more common excuses for not passing (and not repealing) a bunch of (illegal) legislation that this country needs (to be rid of), and that’s complete and utter fucking bullshit bordering on sedition. “Gerrymandering exists, therefore we shouldn’t follow the law or intent of the Constitution” isn’t remotely a valid thing to say.
We did it in the past. Back before computers, even. So amend the Constitution and end this fucking nightmare.
Congressional District Amendment
No longer shall Congressional districts be redrawn by sitting state representatives, nor shall they be redrawn under any circumstance other than an official change in population–as defined by the United States Census–of the corresponding districts in the respective states. Congressional districts shall henceforth be redrawn in a manner according to the mathematical Golden Ratio, where physically applicable within the bounds of state geometry.
The center of the smallest district shall be situated in the center of the most populous city in the state at time of ratification and henceforth from the time of finalization of the most recent census. Expansion outward from the first district follows the mathematical Golden Ratio accordingly. New districts formed due to a change in population shall be created by halving the size of the district in which said population has changed.
It’s definitionally equitable. The number increases but the proportion granted to the states remains the same. You just get more districts. Stop letting our servants (government, remember, serves us, not the other way around) dictate to us who we’re grouped with. Let our very existence (and the mathematical lines drawn therefrom) decide it.
I only mention this as it is one of the hypothetical questions under debate in my part of the world.