Greater Idaho Movement: Is This A Prelude to a National Divorce?

Red State ^ | 06/09/2023 | Jeff Charles

[qam1]

As the website explained, there are many difficult legal obstacles to overcome before this endeavor could be fulfilled.

And another example of why Conservatives always lose. Stupidity. Stop arguing semantics, commissioning useless studies and waiting for permission from the Liberals and just F%^# do it already.

There's nothing in the Constitution that specifically says parts of one state can't break off and join an existing state. So since Idaho state legislators already agreed, pick 2 or 3 of counties that want to leave for starters, and just say as of Jan 1st 2024 we are part of Idaho and make Joe Biden stop you. Then the others join by 2025.

[CrimsonTidegirl]

Don’t forget Minnesota.

[rxh4n1]

I’ll say it again. We should not let people who hate America and its people keep one square inch of our beloved land. We should kick them all out like we did the Tories in 1783. They can go to Canada, Africa, Europe, Mexico, or wherever they want.

[qaz123]

Really? I’ve always wondered that. Absolutely beautiful state.

[Jim Noble]

You want to give all those cities two Senators each?

[Twotone]

If you would like more information about what’s happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me. Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.

[unread]

"But this regional debate raises another issue: the possibility that it could be a precursor to a national divorce."

Yeah.! Count me in....

[dvwjr]

Originally posted by: qam1

There's nothing in the Constitution that specifically says parts of one state can't break off and join an existing state. So since Idaho state legislators already agreed, pick 2 or 3 of counties that want to leave for starters, and just say as of Jan 1st 2024 we are part of Idaho and make Joe Biden stop you. Then the others join by 2025.

One of the more annoying things on FR is the ever present claim that “there is nothing in the Constitution…” when there actually is something in the Constitution. Your statement quoted above is just such an example. Let us see what the Constitution actually says about the subject matter.

Article IV, Section 3

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.

So, the process requires the consent of the Legislatures of both of the States of Oregon and Idaho, then the majority vote of both Houses of Congress to allow the borders of a State to change by the incorporation of parts of another State. The President has no role in the Statehood or border modification process, so Biden would not be consulted.

dvwjr

[qam1]

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;

It's not a new state

but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;

A new state is not being formed

or Parts of States

Part of a state, Oregon, is joining Idaho, but no new state is formed.