Process of statehood is not well defined, but grants the power to the United States Congress as long as the legislatures of the states involved approve.
Www.newcaliforniastate.com
I believe this is their website. It has all the current info including Lara Logan as speaker at the upcoming 10th Constitutional Convention in January.
Virginia NEVER Approved for the creation of West Virginia, it was LINCOLN that made that Approval, UNLAWFULLY and Illegally, and Unconstitutionally....
If those New States FAIL, then Virginia has full rights to sue for the return of it's stolen Property, in the Supreme Court, and IF that happens, buh bye WV, and hopefully the amendments that happened in that same Congress....
Virginia, at the time, was claiming not to be a part of the United States.
I don't see how Virginia can claim that West Virginia was taken away, unconstitutionally, while, at the same time, having in open rebellion and being declared independent of the constitution.
More accurately, some Virginians were claiming to not be under the authority of the USA anymore... these shits were guilty of insurrection, rebellion and for many, treason. It's the same illogical argument made by Lost Causists when they claim that Lincoln violated their constitutional rights... how can they have rights under the US Constitution if they claim to not be part of the USA? The argument, like most all Lost Cause nonsense, collapses back on itself. Luckily, ever year it seems like we are doing better eradicating the cancer that is the Lost Cause and Calhounianism.
The South was being attacked because we were trading with England without using the Yankee trading firms. They tried to tax us out of business, and when that failed, they invaded us, burning courthouses, homes, and crops, and killing countless civilians, including women and children. They are guilty of war crimes, for which they never paid. The slavery issue was only brought up to get ordinary Yankee citizens to be in favor of war. Slavery was on its way out in the South, and would have been gone by the 1880s. You can tell the north's real attitude toward slavery by the fact that all the coon songs and racist works were created up north.
It is interesting when a new development we all like to see is based on an old development that was unconstitutional. I am not sure, but weren't many of states incorporated into the Union done under controversial terms?
Congress has the control of specific stipulations on making a State, not the President....
Constitution does Not Allow for a State to be made inside a State, or from part of a State or parts of States, meaning it has to be an Original State made from a Territory....
I could see making only confederate states not hold slaves while allowing all the neutral states to keep them would be considered unconstitutional. Since it's clearly applied to a political rival and not speak equally through the states
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.
Maine, Kentucky and Michigan had some extremely constitutionally questionable circumstances. Kansas was a shitshow, but ultimately legal. Missouri was a mess as well.
See my other comments in this thread. Virginia was in a state of rebellion, so a government purporting itself to be the legitimate VA government in exile, loyal to the Constitution, relocated to an area of the state that was not in rebellion. It was this legislature and governor that the federal government recognized as being legitimate. The Western counties petitioned this government to leave VA, and it was approved (10th Amendment allows states to let counties leave the state). Said counties, now as territories within the USA applied to the federal government for statehood, and it was approved.
Though it required some extensive legal gymnastics, technically the logic worked without violating the Constitution.
Thank You for the 1984 on that, but I'm actually a real History Buff, and live in West (ern) Virginia....
There wasn't any ""Rebellion"" in Virginia, there was an uprising or better said and movement by/of the FreeMasons, against the Valid Virginian Govt....
1861, Virginia has a convention on whether to secede from the Union
the election of convention delegates drew 145,700 voters who elected, by county, 152 representatives. Thirty of these delegates were secessionists, thirty were unionists, and ninety-two were moderates who were not clearly identified with either of the first two groups. Nevertheless, advocates of immediate secession were clearly outnumbered.
Thereafter, the secession convention voted on April 17, provisionally, to secede, on the condition of ratification by a statewide referendum.
Virginia's ordinance of secession was ratified in a referendum held on May 23, 1861, by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451.
Later that year, "West Virginians" are deciding to secede from Virginia
On June 13, Carlile introduced to the convention "A Declaration of the People of Virginia." The document declared that under the Virginia Declaration of Rights, any substantial change in the form of state government had to be approved by a referendum. Therefore, since the Secession Convention had not been convened by a referendum, all of its acts--including the Ordinance of Secession--were illegal and void. It also declared the existing government in Richmond void and called for the reorganization of the state government on the grounds that Virginia's secession had effectively vacated all state offices. On June 19, delegates approved this plan unanimously.
The next day, June 20, the convention selected new officers of the Virginia state government (usually called the Restored Government of Virginia to avoid confusion with the secessionist government). Francis Pierpont of Marion County was elected governor. On June 25, the convention adjourned until August 6. ""
Shortened Legal view at link above....
There was a PDF that was written by a Female, and it really got into the entire Constitutional Law side of it without mucking everything up with Stupid References to other States and obscure ""Look at this"" references, she simply stuck to the whole Subject of Constitutionality, and it all came down to a SEMICOLON, which is where the fight against the SECOND Amend., began, and we are still fighting against due to a SEMICOLON....
I'll keep looking for it, IF I find it, I'll post it....
Cool. If we want to play the epenis game, I'm an actual historian with two advanced degrees in the field and specialization in the Founding Era through Reconstruction. So... yeah. Whoopie.
You do realize that what you posted actually affirms what I've been saying, right?
There wasn't any ""Rebellion"" in Virginia, there was an uprising or better said and movement by/of the FreeMasons, against the Valid Virginian Govt [...] (usually called the Restored Government of Virginia to avoid confusion with the secessionist government).
Quite literally, there was rebellion, at least in the eastern counties. One group claimed to be the legitimate secessionist government, while the other claimed to be the legitimate government loyal to the USA. The latter was legally the lawful government and they relocated the capitol to the west as the rebels had seized Richmond.
This legitimate government agreed to let the western counties that would become WV, secede from VA (valid under the 10th Amendment) and then those counties applied for statehood and it was granted by Congress. After the rebellion was subdued, the lawful government of VA was restored to Richmond.
Yes. West Virginia exists. It was constitutionally done, albeit requiring some unsual legal gymnastics.
My guess is that Newsome was allowed to be in place as a temporary plug before the election fraud is thrown wide open next year. Thats when this move makes sense.
Brunson case docket
Amicus Brief
New California State Website
Process of statehood is not well defined, but grants the power to the United States Congress as long as the legislatures of the states involved approve.
Www.newcaliforniastate.com I believe this is their website. It has all the current info including Lara Logan as speaker at the upcoming 10th Constitutional Convention in January.
Virginia NEVER Approved for the creation of West Virginia, it was LINCOLN that made that Approval, UNLAWFULLY and Illegally, and Unconstitutionally....
If those New States FAIL, then Virginia has full rights to sue for the return of it's stolen Property, in the Supreme Court, and IF that happens, buh bye WV, and hopefully the amendments that happened in that same Congress....
Virginia, at the time, was claiming not to be a part of the United States.
I don't see how Virginia can claim that West Virginia was taken away, unconstitutionally, while, at the same time, having in open rebellion and being declared independent of the constitution.
More accurately, some Virginians were claiming to not be under the authority of the USA anymore... these shits were guilty of insurrection, rebellion and for many, treason. It's the same illogical argument made by Lost Causists when they claim that Lincoln violated their constitutional rights... how can they have rights under the US Constitution if they claim to not be part of the USA? The argument, like most all Lost Cause nonsense, collapses back on itself. Luckily, ever year it seems like we are doing better eradicating the cancer that is the Lost Cause and Calhounianism.
The South was being attacked because we were trading with England without using the Yankee trading firms. They tried to tax us out of business, and when that failed, they invaded us, burning courthouses, homes, and crops, and killing countless civilians, including women and children. They are guilty of war crimes, for which they never paid. The slavery issue was only brought up to get ordinary Yankee citizens to be in favor of war. Slavery was on its way out in the South, and would have been gone by the 1880s. You can tell the north's real attitude toward slavery by the fact that all the coon songs and racist works were created up north.
Read this::
The South was right, by S. A. Steel - Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/southwasrightbys00stee
It is interesting when a new development we all like to see is based on an old development that was unconstitutional. I am not sure, but weren't many of states incorporated into the Union done under controversial terms?
Controversial,yes, but not Unconstitutional....
Congress has the control of specific stipulations on making a State, not the President....
Constitution does Not Allow for a State to be made inside a State, or from part of a State or parts of States, meaning it has to be an Original State made from a Territory....
I could see making only confederate states not hold slaves while allowing all the neutral states to keep them would be considered unconstitutional. Since it's clearly applied to a political rival and not speak equally through the states
Article IV, section 3:
Maine, Kentucky and Michigan had some extremely constitutionally questionable circumstances. Kansas was a shitshow, but ultimately legal. Missouri was a mess as well.
See my other comments in this thread. Virginia was in a state of rebellion, so a government purporting itself to be the legitimate VA government in exile, loyal to the Constitution, relocated to an area of the state that was not in rebellion. It was this legislature and governor that the federal government recognized as being legitimate. The Western counties petitioned this government to leave VA, and it was approved (10th Amendment allows states to let counties leave the state). Said counties, now as territories within the USA applied to the federal government for statehood, and it was approved.
Though it required some extensive legal gymnastics, technically the logic worked without violating the Constitution.
Thank You for the 1984 on that, but I'm actually a real History Buff, and live in West (ern) Virginia....
There wasn't any ""Rebellion"" in Virginia, there was an uprising or better said and movement by/of the FreeMasons, against the Valid Virginian Govt....
Read this, it has the Facts:: https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/j1rjgq/west_virginia_does_not_exist/
WARNING:: Spoiler Alert_Teaser_Conspiracy Truth_
"" West Virginia Does Not Exist Efortpost
1861, Virginia has a convention on whether to secede from the Union
Later that year, "West Virginians" are deciding to secede from Virginia
Shortened Legal view at link above....
There was a PDF that was written by a Female, and it really got into the entire Constitutional Law side of it without mucking everything up with Stupid References to other States and obscure ""Look at this"" references, she simply stuck to the whole Subject of Constitutionality, and it all came down to a SEMICOLON, which is where the fight against the SECOND Amend., began, and we are still fighting against due to a SEMICOLON....
I'll keep looking for it, IF I find it, I'll post it....
Cool. If we want to play the epenis game, I'm an actual historian with two advanced degrees in the field and specialization in the Founding Era through Reconstruction. So... yeah. Whoopie.
You do realize that what you posted actually affirms what I've been saying, right?
Quite literally, there was rebellion, at least in the eastern counties. One group claimed to be the legitimate secessionist government, while the other claimed to be the legitimate government loyal to the USA. The latter was legally the lawful government and they relocated the capitol to the west as the rebels had seized Richmond.
This legitimate government agreed to let the western counties that would become WV, secede from VA (valid under the 10th Amendment) and then those counties applied for statehood and it was granted by Congress. After the rebellion was subdued, the lawful government of VA was restored to Richmond.
Yes. West Virginia exists. It was constitutionally done, albeit requiring some unsual legal gymnastics.
Is the CA Assembly a progtard supermajority?
Yes, has been for years
My guess is that Newsome was allowed to be in place as a temporary plug before the election fraud is thrown wide open next year. Thats when this move makes sense.