The Cal 3 Initiative: Three Californias may be coming soon

American Thinker ^ | 04/16/2018 | Fritz Pettyjohn

[Red Badger]

Ain’t gonna happen......................

[Magnum44]

Moved out just a few months ago.

[Henchster]

Article IV Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states 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.

What makes them so sure that Sacramento will be willing to diminish its power by 2/3's?

And while not stated above, I believe they need a supermajority in both houses of Congress for this to pass. If not initially, then after Trump vetoes it.

[shotgun]

Based on the map it looks like libs would control the new northern state and the coastal state. How is this a win for anybody but the rats.

[pepsionice]

The problem here is that the Constitution doesn’t really specify any method to make this work, and I think thirty of the states would presently deny California the privilege.

The other side of this discussion is if you allow them to do it....why not allow North and South Alabama to also exist? Why not allow Alaska to be broken up into two states? Why not allow Rhode Island to be broken in half?

There’s a whole bunch of debate here....things really left over from the 1760 era, and I doubt seriously that Jefferson would have sat there and imagined 50 states, and 100 Senators existing.

[WayneS]

Upon re-re-re-reading paragraph one of Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, and paying very close attention to the placement of semicolons and commas, I am not at all certain that a state may divide itself in to two or more states:

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 con- cerned as well as of the Congress.

[dragnet2]

They said the exact same thing about Trump. It'll never happen.☺

[Lurkinanloomin]

All three remain de facto Mexican colonies.....

[fuzzylogic]

I can’t see the powers that be in CA allowing this. Yes, more Senator’s but the only reason a Dem has a shot at the presidency is due to the automatic 55 electoral college votes from CA. They get almost 1/5 of the needed votes without even trying. This would break things up enough so that they’d have to at least fight for all of those EC votes - moving funds away from other battlegrounds. It would only take a part of them to vote Republican to make it virtually impossible to have a Dem POTUS.

[TheCipher]

If they break up into 3 states, I don’t think they automatically become states. They have to petition Congress. In the meantime, would California have any representation in Congress, since the old California no longer exists?

[Fido969]

We’ll get at least 2 new pub Senators, and they’ll get maybe 2 new ‘rat Senators.

[Jim Robinson]

I vote nay. Just wait until “the big one” splits off and drops SF to LA into the Pacific.

[So Cal Rocket]

Nope.

Using the proposed county groupings for NorCal, Cal, and SoCal in the initiative, and using the 2016 Presidential election results as a proxy of how each state would vote for a Senator, we would end up with 6 Kamala Harris type Progressives in the Senate. And while some are hoping that this measure might strip off some Electoral votes for the GOP candidate, that won’t happen either - in fact the Dems would end up with 4 more EVs.

2016 Presidential Election results by proposed “3Cal Split”:

Nor Cal: Clinton 3,402,343 - Trump 1,464,637
Cal: Clinton 2,934,624 - Trump 1,057,331
So Cal: Clinton 2,413,666 - Trump 1,957,594

[Delta 21]

Now California has two Democratic senators. Under Cal 3, it will have four Democratic senators from ultra-blue North California and California. The two senators from South California will be up for grabs. Democrats could pick off one of them or even two. The Democrats will not lose Senate seats, but they might gain one or two.

Dead on arrival.

[j.havenfarm]

This is a trap. The primary divide is urban coastal liberal vs Rural inland conservative. Even at that the inland cities are a challenge. Sacramento County for example is reliably liberal. To overcome any defiance in souther California, they’d just import more illegals into Orange and San Diego counties. This plan will just create 6 rat Senate seats instead of 2

[mrs9x]

Right, California Dems might like the idea of having more senators, but any breakup of the 55 Electoral votes that automatically go Democrat every cycle would basically destroy any chance of a Democrat president for the foreseeable future. I can’t see Sacramento agreeing to that.

[mrs9x]

The only real solution is a 2-state solution that others have proposed - LA and SF in one state along the coast, all of the inland portions, northern and southern counties as another state.

[Magnatron]

We need to be careful about cheering this on. Splitting into three states would give California three times the number of Senators, probably more congressmen, and three separate electoral college entries. Depending on how the borders are drawn, we could be inviting more leftists into the process.

[goldstategop]

Sacramento is not going to give up its stranglehold - nor are Democrats going to cede 55 EV.

It could easily backfire on them by creating two new GOP states.

That’s why its DOA.

[MeganC]

California’s state constitution delegates the ‘consent of the legislature’ clause of the US Constitution to the people of the state if they pass a state constitutional amendment via a referendum.