US stop making payments to California(No more SS or welfare). Charges them for services.

Illegal aliens don't pay taxes and the rich will stop being rich once they are no longer able to suck off the federal tit!

What about the counties that want to say? We keep them! Break into 3 to 5 states.

Build the wall between CaliMexico. Let them implode and watch them beg to come back! ;)

As the Yes California group gears up, another initiative to break up California into three separate states is also taking shape. That plan, backed by Silicon Valley billionaire Tim Draper, would create a northern California state with San Francisco at its core, another state near Los Angeles and a third that covers the Central Valley as well as San Diego.

Here in the 5 northern Counties, we've long tried to form the State of Jefferson. -- The movement is still alive, but about the only place you still see it advocated is at the gun shows..

I think the US should be broken into about 5 - 6 different countries.

Terrible idea, seeing that our Republic of States United is the only hope in the world that men will ever learn to live together peacefully..

In fact, I think that if Canada and Mexico were smart, they would break up into say seven States each, and join into a United States of North America, under our Constitution...

Terrible idea, seeing that our Republic of States United is the only hope in the world that men will ever learn to live together peacefully..

Seeing what we've done to a number of countries around the world, I can't agree that we've been very much of an example of how to "live together peacefully".

And I don't think too many countries would want to join the union as a state unless they would somehow be exempt from helping to pay down the national debt that they had no part in creating.

That's one thing about succession. If a state did want to succeed, what happens to their share of the US national debt? Is it off-loaded to the remaining 49?

And I'd bet that plenty of States in the world would join us, if we'd let them... -- Regardless of our debts, which will never be paid.

We will never let a State succeed, imo...

And your hired!!

Advocates who want California to secede from the rest of the United States

To avoid this, I say we should be careful which territories we allow to become states to begin with. Like Puerto Rico.

Other than the civil war, (brought on by States that ignored our Constitution), I think we've done pretty good on living together peacefully.

What provisions of the Constitution were ignored by States, thereby bringing about the civil war?

Please specify or quote Article, Section, Clause; or Amendment, Clause.

To avoid this, I say we should be careful which territories we allow to become states to begin with. Like Puerto Rico.

Puerto has repeatedly voted to not become a state. Becoming a state brings with it the paying of Federal taxes.

The latest measure would ask voters in 2020 to decide whether to open up a secession discussion. If passed, a second election would be held a year later asking voters to affirm the decision and become an independent country.

Voting and affirming in California will not make it an independent country.

Neither can California divide itself into two or three states, and get four or six senators, solely by virtue of state action.

What provisions of the Constitution were ignored by States, thereby bringing about the civil war?

Please specify or quote Article, Section, Clause; or Amendment, Clause.

Hey, -- good to see you posting again, even if you are a bit demanding about it.

Would you admit they ignored the basic human rights of slaves, as enumerated in our Constitution? -- Probably not, but in any case I am not obligated to " specify or quote Article, Section, Clause; or Amendment, Clause", even through you wrote please....

Also, I blame the slave States officials for violating their oaths to honor and defend the constitution of the USA.

Are you defending the confederate concept?

And, if you have time, I'd appreciate any comment on the thread:--- Suicide of the West HOW THE REBIRTH OF TRIBALISM, POPULISM, NATIONALISM, AND IDENTITY POLITICS IS DESTROYING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY By JONAH GOLDBERG ....

Thanks.

Would you admit they ignored the basic human rights of slaves, as enumerated in our Constitution? -- Probably not, but in any case I am not obligated to " specify or quote Article, Section, Clause; or Amendment, Clause", even through you wrote please....

Also, I blame the slave States officials for violating their oaths to honor and defend the constitution of the USA.

At the time of secession, all states were slave states.

At the time of secession, all states were slave states.

Picky pickey...

Do you want to discuss issues, or my misuse of language?

Puerto has repeatedly voted to not become a state.

In the past, yes. But ...

"A referendum on the political status of Puerto Rico was held in Puerto Rico on June 11, 2017. The referendum had three options: becoming a state of the United States, independence/free association, or maintaining the current territorial status. Those who voted overwhelmingly chose statehood by 97%."
-- Wiki

What provisions of the Constitution were ignored by States, thereby bringing about the civil war?

Please specify or quote Article, Section, Clause; or Amendment, Clause.

Hey, -- good to see you posting again, even if you are a bit demanding about it.

Asking you to please cite the textual content of the Constitution that you claim was ignored, thereby bringing about the Civil War, does not seem very demanding.

Would you admit they ignored the basic human rights of slaves, as enumerated in our Constitution? -- Probably not, but in any case I am not obligated to " specify or quote Article, Section, Clause; or Amendment, Clause", even through you wrote please....

Would you please cite the textual content of the Constitution that you claim enumerated the basic human rights of slaves?

Please specify or quote Article, Section, Clause; or Amendment, Clause.

I will cite and quote a few provisions of the Constitution. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, known as The Fugitive Slave Clause, spoke clearly to the purported rights of slaves. Slaves who ran away to a free state were required to be delivered up on claim. They were not to be considered as having been discharged from teir service or labor.

I am unaware of the provision or provisions of the Constitution which enumerated the basic human rights of slaves.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Article V:

... no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article....

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ...

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;—to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;—to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;—to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;—to controversies between two or more states;—between a state and citizens of another state;—between citizens of different states;—between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Puerto has repeatedly voted to not become a state.

In the past, yes. But ...

"A referendum on the political status of Puerto Rico was held in Puerto Rico on June 11, 2017. The referendum had three options: becoming a state of the United States, independence/free association, or maintaining the current territorial status. Those who voted overwhelmingly chose statehood by 97%."
-- Wiki

Nice failure to link and creative editing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2017

Puerto Rican status referendum, 2017

A referendum on the political status of Puerto Rico was held in Puerto Rico on June 11, 2017.[1] The referendum had three options: becoming a state of the United States, independence/free association, or maintaining the current territorial status.[2] Those who voted overwhelmingly chose statehood by 97%; turnout, however, was 23%, a historically low figure.[3] This figure is attributed to a boycott led by the pro-status quo PPD party.[4]

Four previous referendums have been held on the island to decide on its political status, the most recent in 2012. Puerto Rico has been an unincorporated territory of the United States since the conclusion of the Spanish–American War in 1898, and its residents were granted U.S. citizenship in 1917.

Nice failure to link and creative editing.

I put the text in quotes and attributed Wiki. I figured you knew how to get there.

Would you please cite the textual content of the Constitution that you claim enumerated the basic human rights of slaves?

Note that the constitution admits that slaves are PERSONS:----

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:

No person held to service or labor----.

The bill of rights, and throughout the constitution, --- the peoples rights and obligations are mentioned..

People are persons, regardless whether they are held to service or labor.

Can you agree?

I am unaware of the provision or provisions of the Constitution whi whi whi whi which enumerated the basic human rights of slaves.

Correct. Because of that, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were passed which freed the slaves, gave them the right to vote, and extended to them the privileges and immunities held by citizens of the United States.

States, not the federal government, protected the rights of their Citizens. If any state wished to extend the protection of those rights to slaves they were free to do so. Or not.

I put the text in quotes and attributed Wiki. I figured you knew how to get there.

And I did know how to go there and provided what it showed about what you did.

"Those who voted overwhelmingly chose statehood by 97%."

Of course, the original did not end with a period but, after a semi-colon, continued with information showing that the referendum result was nonsense.

"turnout, however, was 23%, a historically low figure.[3] This figure is attributed to a boycott led by the pro-status quo PPD party.[4]"

People are persons, regardless whether they are held to service or labor.

Can you agree?

Absolutely, we can agree that even slaves were recognized as people.

Owners of slave persons had the right to buy and sell said slave persons in the District of Columbia down the street from the White House. The children of said slave persons were born as slaves.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ...

Note that persons held to a term of service or labor were different from slaves. Slaves made up the "other Persons." Illinois abolished slavery in that state but had 99-year indentured servitude.

Would you please cite the textual content of the Constitution that you claim enumerated the basic human rights of slaves?

Note that the constitution admits that slaves are PERSONS:----

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:

No person held to service or labor----.

The bill of rights, and throughout the constitution, --- the peoples rights and obligations are mentioned..

People are persons, regardless whether they are held to service or labor.

Can you agree?

---- " Absolutely, we can agree that even slaves were recognized as people. "

Thus, -- do you agree that the Constitution enumerates the basic human rights of the people also known as slaves?

Of course, the original did not end with a period but, after a semi-colon, continued with information showing that the referendum result was nonsense.

The 23% would be upset to hear their vote was "nonsense". I stopped where I did because I made my point.

Now, if you want to claim that, had the turnout been higher, the results would have been different, be my guest. BUT, that would be speculation, not fact.

Absolutely, we can agree that even slaves were recognized as people.

Constitutionally speaking, back then freed slaves were recognized as "persons". Only "the people" had full rights (ie., to own property, hold elected office, participate in the Militia, assemble in public, be free from unreasonable searches, etc.)

In their documents, the Founders were careful to distinguish between the two classes of citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_movement_in_Puerto_Rico

Referendum question and options

The 2017 referendum offered three options: Statehood, Independence/Free Association, and "Current Territorial Status". If the majority of the people voted for the Independence/Free Association, a second vote would have been held to determine the preference: full independence as a nation or associated free state status with independence but with a "free and voluntary political association" between Puerto Rico and the United States.[17]

The White House Task Force on Puerto Rico offers the following specifics:

“Free Association is a type of independence. A compact of Free Association would establish a mutual agreement that would recognize that the United States and Puerto Rico are closely linked in specific ways as detailed in the compact. Compacts of this sort are based on the national sovereignty of each country, and either nation can unilaterally terminate the association.[17]”

The Compact of Free Association would have covered topics such as the role of the U.S. military in Puerto Rico, the use of the U.S. currency, free trade between the two entities, and whether Puerto Ricans would be U.S. citizens.[18]

Governor Ricardo Rosselló was strongly in favor of statehood to help develop the economy and help to "solve our 500-year-old colonial dilemma ... Colonialism is not an option .... It’s a civil rights issue ... 3.5 million citizens seeking an absolute democracy," he told the news media.[19] Benefits of statehood include an additional $10 billion per year in federal funds, the right to vote in presidential elections, higher Social Security and Medicare benefits, and a right for its government agencies and municipalities to file for bankruptcy. The latter is currently prohibited.[1]

At approximately the same time as the referendum, Puerto Rico's legislators were expected to vote on a bill that would allow the Governor to draft a state constitution and hold elections to choose senators and representatives to the federal Congress. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, action by the United States Congress would be necessary to implement changes to the status of Puerto Rico under the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution.[20]

Boycott

The referendum was boycotted by all the major parties against statehood for several reasons. One reason is that the title of the ballot asserted that Puerto Rico is a colony.[a] The Popular Democratic Party (PPD) has historically rejected that notion. Similarly, under the option for maintaining the status quo, the ballot also asserted that Puerto Rico is subject to the plenary powers of the United States Congress, a notion also historically rejected by the PPD.[b] Likewise, under the 'independence/free association' option, the ballot asserted that Puerto Rico must be a sovereign nation in order to enter into a compact of free association with the United States.[c] Supporters of the free association movement reject this notion. Had these parties participated in the referendum, they claim it would mean they had accepted those assertions implicitly, regardless of whether the assertions were correct.

And so it came to pass, the dingbat party held a meaningless push-poll referendum and gained 97.18% approval for statehood. and the United States ignored it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_movement_in_Puerto_Rico

Because there were almost 500,000 blank ballots in the 2012 referendum, creating confusion as to the voters' true desire, Congress decided to ignore the results.[33] The 2014 budget bill included $2.5 million in funding for a future referendum; there was no deadline attached to the funds.[34][35]

The fifth referendum, entitled "Plebiscite for the immediate decolonization of Puerto Rico" was held on June 11, 2017 and offered three options: "Statehood", "Free Association/Independence" and "Current Territorial Status", and the U.S. Justice Department required Puerto Rico to add the territorial status as an option as a requirement to release the $2.5 million funds set aside by the Obama administration to help educate the population on any future plebiscite, however the vote was held before the ballot could be reviewed, so the funds were not released.

The United States government even refused to release funds set aside in 2014 by the Obama administration to help educate the population on any future plebiscite.

I stopped where I did because I made my point.

Ah yes, your point was,

[nc] Puerto has repeatedly voted to not become a state.

[mw] In the past, yes. But ...

Well, in the past, and in every poll not utterly rejected due to the inclusion of bullshit content.

Constitutionally speaking, back then freed slaves were recognized as "persons". Only "the people" had full rights (ie., to own property, hold elected office, participate in the Militia, assemble in public, be free from unreasonable searches, etc.)

In their documents, the Founders were careful to distinguish between the two classes of citizens.

Freed slaves enjoyed no municipal status whatever. They were not a second class of citizen. The only classes of citizen are natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. Manumission/freedom did not confer citizenship upon a slave.