That include west virginia? Seems to me if these counties proved the state committed election fraud would make it a case of treason which would given them legal grounds to separate.
That would be a creative legal angle to argue. West Virginia was an interesting case because the Constitution explicitly prohibits the forming of a new state from within an already existing state. When VA devolved into a state of rebellion, the loyal governemnt relocated to the western part of the state, claiming to be the legitimate government of VA. Loyal western counties then petitioned the loyal VA government to secede from VA. Arguably, the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit states from permitting counties within its own borders, to secede from the state. So ipso facto, after the loyal, legitimate government of VA allowed these counties to secede from VA, they essentially became territories of the United States because all land within the borders of the USA, is ultimately still under the jurisdiction of the federal government. So at that point, as territories, yes, they could then appeal to Congress for statehood, which only Congress would need to approve, as they did.
The whole process was something of a constitutional loop hole. The rebellion argument does hold far more legal weight than what happened with Maine being formed out of Massachusetts.
The CA counties could make the claim that California is in a state of rebellion, and attempt what the loyal Virginians did. But it's still a really, really gray area, constitutionally speaking. An amendment to the Constitution explicitly clarifying the question, would certainly be an improvement.
I don't really like the approach though. It creates a problem for the purpose of solving a problem. A better, constitutionally cleaner solution would just be for the federal government to put down the rebellion in California and elsewhere... unlike in 1860-1865, we have far less defined geographic boundaries to define "where" the rebellion exists... arguably, it exists to some degree, everywhere throughout the entire country.
That is not reason Constitutionally for them to leave. Violation of the General Welfare Clause of the State Constitution of Oregon however, that is reason to leave. In other words, if the citizens of those counties can show that the state of Oregon cannot meet their obligations of providing basic general welfare of the citizens, as in crime, safety, education, health, etc, then they have reason to head for greener pastures. The state of Oregon has failed their governmental contract with the citizens - in other words, the citizens want a divorce.
That include west virginia? Seems to me if these counties proved the state committed election fraud would make it a case of treason which would given them legal grounds to separate.
That would be a creative legal angle to argue. West Virginia was an interesting case because the Constitution explicitly prohibits the forming of a new state from within an already existing state. When VA devolved into a state of rebellion, the loyal governemnt relocated to the western part of the state, claiming to be the legitimate government of VA. Loyal western counties then petitioned the loyal VA government to secede from VA. Arguably, the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit states from permitting counties within its own borders, to secede from the state. So ipso facto, after the loyal, legitimate government of VA allowed these counties to secede from VA, they essentially became territories of the United States because all land within the borders of the USA, is ultimately still under the jurisdiction of the federal government. So at that point, as territories, yes, they could then appeal to Congress for statehood, which only Congress would need to approve, as they did.
The whole process was something of a constitutional loop hole. The rebellion argument does hold far more legal weight than what happened with Maine being formed out of Massachusetts.
The CA counties could make the claim that California is in a state of rebellion, and attempt what the loyal Virginians did. But it's still a really, really gray area, constitutionally speaking. An amendment to the Constitution explicitly clarifying the question, would certainly be an improvement.
I don't really like the approach though. It creates a problem for the purpose of solving a problem. A better, constitutionally cleaner solution would just be for the federal government to put down the rebellion in California and elsewhere... unlike in 1860-1865, we have far less defined geographic boundaries to define "where" the rebellion exists... arguably, it exists to some degree, everywhere throughout the entire country.
That is not reason Constitutionally for them to leave. Violation of the General Welfare Clause of the State Constitution of Oregon however, that is reason to leave. In other words, if the citizens of those counties can show that the state of Oregon cannot meet their obligations of providing basic general welfare of the citizens, as in crime, safety, education, health, etc, then they have reason to head for greener pastures. The state of Oregon has failed their governmental contract with the citizens - in other words, the citizens want a divorce.
This is correct and the premise they use. Anyone who understands this will kn ow this could happen.