Posted on 06/15/2010 10:21:39 PM PDT by Ancient Drive
We gotta staunch the bleeding somewhere right?
True. California has enough resources to function as a powerful nation, all by itself. To divide it would be to ruin that completeness.
Split or not, you got that right, Libs go home to NY,MA,NJ,De,etc, etc, etc....
We’re gonna start on Babs Boxer in Nov..... when she gets a pink slip and a ticket back to Brooklyn, NY.....
“They need your money and your population (to keep 54 House seats/electoral votes).”
We have 9% of the population but only hold 2% of the Senate seats.........
Course maybe thats a good thing seeing those seats are held by the likes of Babs Boxer and Diane Feinstein......LOLOLOL
No. I live here pretty much in the middle and even though it is a liberal cess pool and overrun with illegal immies and Mexi gang/traffickers, it is California—spanning, variable, and diverse. We just need to let them shoot themselves in the foot until it is nearly dead and keep working and turning it red, red, red. There is hope until death.
Yes. Well said.
No. Just use the bay area and LA for strip mining, wind farms, oil exploration, etc. And ship the citizens thereof to Cuba or Mexico.
Yes, the bay area can from it’s own SR, leaving the rest of us with at least the possibility of being a real state.
We have 9% of the population but only hold 2% of the Senate seats.........
But, the Senate was designed that way on purpose ... You can't expect anything different than the founding fathers put together. You may be thinking about the House of Representatives, instead ... :-)
“But, the Senate was designed that way on purpose ... You can’t expect anything different than the founding fathers put together. You may be thinking about the House of Representatives, instead ... :-)”
I understand that, and agree with it’s purpose of leveling the power between big state v small state in the upper house (Senate).....Yet at the same time, I don’t think that the founders envisioned a mega state like California with a 38M population being represented by just 2 Senators when that compromise was made .....
The solution is not more Senators for each state, it is smaller (population wise) states. Time for California to be divided into 3 parts.... 6 senators and 54 House members Total.... Southern California, Northern California, and the State of Jefferson (with portions of southern Oregon)....
Even then, two of those would have just 2 Senators as the Founders envisioned for still very large states, (~15M+ each N & S California)
Just rename the state Mexiformia and give it to Mexico.
In fact, that's exactly what the Founders envisioned when they decided on equal state representation in the Senate.
I’m just tired of the votes of conservative middle California being over-ridden by LA and SF.
I’ve been to CA many times. Let me assure you, I am NOT jealous. The traffic is horrendous, the pollution is horrible. Yes, the weather is nice, but YES it does get cold there. It is beautiful, but it’s becoming Little Mexico, and you can’t deny that.
No No No. They should be joined with Oregon and washington so the whole flock of Liberals only have 2 Senators.
No!! Two senators is too much already. We should trade California to Canada for Calgary.
In fact, that’s exactly what the Founders envisioned when they decided on equal state representation in the Senate.”
Baloney! They were dealing with 13 small (in modern terms) states when they wrote the Constitution and thought in terms of the states as they knew them.
When the founders wrote the Constitution do you think they envisioned that there would be enormous states like California in terms of both area and population? Modern day California is larger both geographically (or nearly so) and population wise (most certainly) than the entire original 13 States.....
The fault lies not in the Federal system of determining representation of each state, and that is not my argument, but in letting such large tracts like California with the potential of huge population growth, enter the Union as one single state. The Bear Flag Republic should have entered as at least two states.....Like the Dakotas (North and South), like the Utah Territory (Utah, Nevada)....
My point is that California should be broken up into smaller political units that reflect their separate regional concerns.....There are great differences between Northern/Central/Southern California, as well as coastal v inland California.
The state is so large that it has become politically unmanageable/disfunctional. (Unchecked illegal immigration hasn’t helped) On both the State and Federal level it makes sense to break up California into 3 new States. It has been done before....witness Virginia/West Virginia......(Hmmmm the original State of Virginia now has 4 Senators, 2 each from WVa and Va. Did the Founders envision/intend that? How is that situation different than modern day California?)
This issue has come up many times in the past 60 years....in the 1950’s Northern California and Southern Oregon floated the Idea of Creating the State of Jefferson breaking away from the population centers of LA/SF/ Portland and representative goverments that no longer addressed their concerns or met their needs.... the idea still has great merit for the inhabitants of that region, and there are those that continue to push for it.
Change a word here and there and you have the same sentiment here in Pennsylvania.
I’m just tired of the votes of conservative middle California Pennsylvania being over-ridden by LA and SF Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
(Vanity) What we can Learn from Europe, or, When Arnold met deTocqueville
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.