Lets not put the cart before the horse. If we just start arresting traitors, without exposing the reality of the world to the people, they will replace those traitors with other traitors. First the GA, then the people will make sure the justice is served.
That may well be "the Plan," but how does splitting up California and other States into "New California" help that cause?
There's no way Newsome, Pelosi, or th Fed Govt allow this to happen. Even "if" this group gets the required amount of votes AND a win or two in the lower Fed Courts, there's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IN HELL that SC(r)OTUS allows it. And even "if" they say yes, there's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY this passes resolution drafts in both Congressional Chambers AND/OR States' Convention. The Uniparty just WILL NEVWR give up such a huge cask cow as California (a state with a larger GDP than 90% of the rest of the World). This is a pipe dream that everyone here (and on VOAT) has been toking on for yrs now.
The Feds and individual States can't even agree on whether to allow P.R., American Samoa, or Guam to become our next States. What makes ANYONE here think they'll agree to give up California?!
Whatever y'all are smoking, DM me so I can score some too, because I need a good hallucinogenic trip right about now.
In areas that have become so entrenched with stinky deep staters in charge on so many levels, the quickest way to freedom may be through divorce. Divorce from the state.
Exactly. And that divorce will hasten the correction of the "stinky deep staters" problem in the leftover parts as well. People are free to vote with their feet. This would be our own version of "divide and conquer".
The doomers saying this can never work are apparently too dimwitted to realize the EXACT SAME PROCESS was used to create the state of West Virginia (as one example) in the past. Obviously, that process does in fact work.
CA has the most electoral votes by far, at 55. We’re the crown jewel of election fraud where it’s just assumed the elections go Left and nobody questions it.
Their worst nightmare would be splitting up those votes between “New CA” (which would be red) and the swamp of Old CA.
Same goes for Eastern WA, Eastern OR and Half of Idaho. The half of each wanting to split is because they are conservatives who have no representation from where the state government resides and they are fed up with rigged elections that never favor them.
I think they probably know the unlikeliness of it actually happening now. I think the purpose is it advertise to the Congress and public just how unhappy they are with the leadership in California. In thr future, it could possibly be included in a deal to grant statehood to.Puerto Rico as "New California" would likely be a red state that could balance out a likely blue state (although Puerto Ricans aren't necessarily guaranteed majority blue, from what I understand). This would be the same model as the slave state/free state deals they did back then.
Cant expose the traitors till we gain control. Cant gain control the traditional way. We have to think outside the box. If this is true, and it is possible just like that, then ny is next. 2 powerhouses of dem control vanish instantly.
Do i believe this is legit, no i do not. There needs to be voting out of a state right?
31 of the 40 Senators and 60 of the 80 Representatives in the California legislature are Democrats. What possible reason do you imagine they have to let these people loose from their schemes and also give them 2 Senators to boot?
That's what I'm asking, too. Not to mention this needs approval from SC(r)OTUS on "Constitutionality, approval from Both U.S. Congressional Chambers, AND States Convention.
We could really use a delousing as well. Where I live is a different realm than Detroit or Lansing. We are certainly not represented, though taxed heavily by those accords.
Same with Minnesota. It's only the Twin Cities region that dictates what the rest of the state does, thanks in part to Obammy allowing countless Somalis to take over our state.
Soon it will be full of liberals fleeing their old liberal state and looking forward to destroy the new one until the whole country goes to hell. Wherever they see prosperity, freedom and morals they will come to destroy it like a parasite mentality that wanna takes advantage of the healthy host. They know they are coming to destroy, their destruction effect never dies with the death of the host, it infects the new hosts and procreate spreading their destruction to other hosts first. I don’t think it’s a solution for the problem unless they can build a border so the sick libtards cannot turn them into the New Commiefornia.
I recently read about a Los Angeles ad agency that moved to Houston and gave money to their 800 employees to relocate to rural Texas areas in hopes of them to bring family and grow the area to swing the votes there.
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
I know plenty when it comes to American and US history. I know many people are wrong on this. I know there are multiple sides to every story.
The confederate states' stated reason for leaving the union was to self-govern and protect their own interests, which is a reasonable and understandable desire. However, the underlying reason for their decision to secede was their desire to maintain and expand the practice of slavery, which is morally reprehensible and completely unacceptable.
However, the underlying reason for their decision to secede was their desire to maintain and expand the practice of slavery, which is morally reprehensible and completely unacceptable.
There we go, throw out the LIE, so that people think it's a Moral High Ground taken by the Aggressor....
Sounds exactly like something some Clown from ANTIFA would say, IF they were living back then....
the Truth is that Under States Rights, the STATE has the Responsibility to Allow or Make Unlawful certain things, Drugs, Murder, Property Damage, Rape, Slavery, Stealing, etc....
And the southern Slave owners had already seen that they were actually losing money because of the Ownership of Slaves, and because of the New Machines that were being invented, such as the Cotton gin, The Sewing Machine, the Vacuum Milker, so they were looking for ways to get rid of the Slaves, and move in the Machines in order to improve their Plantations and be prosperous....
Slavery was on the way OUT,and the Northern States knew it, so did the Rothschilds in Europe, so they got Busy planning and implementing the destruction of the Southern States....
States that were in rebellion, we're in rebellion and could be treated by the federal government differently. Slaves were freed in the rebelling states, as a war measure, to deprive rebels of their "property" as punishment for their rebellion. That's what they get for trying to claim that people were their property.
Yankees were doing the very same thing up until a few years before the war. The fact that the Emancipation Proclamation had so many "exceptions" proves that Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves and just wanted to punish people who dared defy him by trading with England without using Yankee trading companies. Slavery was going to be gone in the South by the 1880s anyway. It was not the real issue.
Doing the very same thing? What are you smoking? Slavery was outlawed in the northern states. They went even further, exercising their states' rights to protect inhabitants within their jurisdiction from being illegally kidnapped and trafficked to the slave states to be enslaved.
There were no "exceptions" in the EP. Some solid sophistry there. The EP only applied to areas in rebellion, because they were in rebellion. Don't want to be punished? Don't engage in unlawful rebellion against the legitimate federal government and Constitution.
Slavery was literally growing exponentially and reached a PEAK in 1860. Slavers spent decades doing everything they could to expand slave territory west, south, and even north (see Lincoln's House Divided speech and the conspiracy he described... that's the real meaning behind how he applied the house divided analogy). Why? Because they needed more fertile land. Why? Because they refused to implement crop rotation but instead damaged their land by only planting cash crops so they could get rich off other counties while trying to avoid export (and import) taxes. It was outsourcing to Europeans because the aristocratic, plantation owning Europhiles would do anything to keep their slaves, keep their luxurous lives, and keep their power (over poor white people too).
Slavery was THE political issue from which every other political issue spawned during the antebellum period in 19th Century America. It literally caused the creation of a new political party whose platform was to prevent the expansion of slavery. Hell, the issue even caused national church bodies to split along geographic lines.
Please step away from the Lost Cause propaganda. That koolaid is a cancer to republican conservatism... yoking yourself to the defenders of an evil institution will only make you look like an ignorant redneck and gives our real enemy ammo.
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.
So according to the constitution, this will never happen. And plus, West Virginia will be just Virginia again…if this gets pushed. Unless I’m reading that incorrectly.
You are reading it correctly but Virginia was seceded from the US at the time and WV broke away to rejoin the US, thus, most are looking at the WV / VA situation wrongly: it is not the same as New California trying to breakaway from a California that is still a part of the US
I was also pointing out that your statement "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...." was untrue. It is conditional.
As for Lincoln, he was put in a tough situation where he had to either let the Cabal win or break the constitution. They are experts in cooking up such situations.
The only question I am interested in is whether, if he had allowed the South to secede, it would have hastened the enslavement by the Cabal or not. I strongly believe it would have.
Trump definitely learnt from this, and while people hate him for wanting to do everything by the book, this is exactly what he is trying to avoid.
Every breath we exhale should be a gratitude for the past mistakes that helps us avoid them in future.
Either the Republic is Voluntary or it is forced....
If it is Voluntary, it is a True Republic, if it is Forced, it is Not a Republic, but something else....
Call it a Democracy, or anything else, but not a Republic, as it implies True Freedom to Self Govern....
IF it is a Voluntary Republic, then States have Sovereignty, and Sovereign Rights, and in those is the Right to LEAVE the Union without encumbrances....
If they Don't, then we have Feudalism under a Sovereign, and the states have nearly no Rights, as they ALL equally lost Lincolns war....
Lincoln had way better Choices, and more choices than to simply STEAL Congress's powers, and Declare War....
But he chose POORLY, and not only did he violate the U.S. Constitution, he Violated the Law of Nations, mentioned in U.S. Constitution Article I. Legislative Branch. Section VIII. Clause X. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
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.
It is unusual Mental gymnastics, along with some serious Legal Word Salad to get things done....
It all starts and Ends with one thing, a Semicolon, which is the exact same problem we have with Gun Control, a Semicolon....
As for Congress approving the Statehood, it was Lincoln who approved it First, unconstitutionally, and Congress approved it later, AFTER WV had fully claimed to be a State....
Believe it or don't, I actually have ALL of this info DL'ed onto my Computer, as an FB file, but like hell if I can figure out HOW to access it, and I have tried every trick I can fin for Linux....
The ""Rebellion"", which only existed in the Minds of the Freemasons, wasn't really much of one....
Almost everywhere they went to preach about the ills f Secession, they were meat with lots of pushback, these people were Virginians First, Southerners Second, and didn't want to lose their Heritage, had they pushed harder, who knows....
Congrats on your two Masters Degrees in Propaganda, I hopefully, still have my sharper points of History, in order to impress....
As for Congress approving the Statehood, it was Lincoln who approved it First, unconstitutionally, and Congress approved it later, AFTER WV had fully claimed to be a State....
That's just not correct. Senate Bill 365 to approve West Virginia statehood was passed by Congress and then signed by Linoln on Dec 31, 1862... happy birthday West Virginia! Perhaps where you are confused, is the recognition of the restored government of Virginia, which was first acknowledged by the President and then Congress seated the new members to the body.
Interesting thing about WV being approved, was that it technically entered as a slave state, at least slavery was legal. However, it included a provision mandating gradual emancipation. Of course the bulk of slaves in VA were in the eastern, primarily coastal region.
The ""Rebellion"", which only existed in the Minds of the Freemasons, wasn't really much of one...
So the seizure of federal military installations never happened? The Army of Northern Virginia was a phantom? All of the masses of battles between federal and rebel forces in VA were just false flags invented by newspapers?
Congrats on your two Masters Degrees in Propaganda,
Backhanded compliments as means to levy ad hominem are quite the tell tale sign of you admitting you've lost this debate. The only propaganda being pushed here is by you and the Lost Cause apologist Aspie.
.
hopefully, still have my sharper points of History, in order to impress....
Whatever works for you man. If the delusional world you live in makes you happy, then by all means stay in it
Who specifically would they be ""Rebelling"" against???
The States, began as Individual Colonies, not as a Group, but Strictly as Individuals, and were recognized as such, as Individual Colonies that Upgraded themselves each alone to the Status of Individual Sovereign Nations....
The Founders made a huge Mistake when they named the United States, instead of the Current misnomer, they really should have named the Federal Conglomeration something bold, like the United Nations of America, and then it would be much clearer, and people would not believe that States are inferior to the U.S. Federation....
IF the States have Rights, and IF they are Sovereign, then the Question becomes Who the Hell were they ""Rebeling"" Against???
Sovereigns cannot rebel against themselves, so Who was this hidden ""SOVEREIGN"" that they were in ""Rebellion"" against???
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.
Finally some better marketing. I was into the state of Jefferson movement, volunteered and gathered signatures. Biggest pushback, confusion, and question I got was about the “state of Jefferson.” Nobody wanted that but they didn’t understand that was just the temporary name of the movement. Upon statehood an official state name would be chosen and most in the movement wanted “new California” or something similar. Always said we should lead with that…as well as make it more libertarian.
Just my honest opinion. It’s not gonna happen. Like to see the election cheating and everything else stopped first. Then you’d see how red the state really is
I don't see it happening, there have been movements in the past to form new states in California. I remember one where they were going to break off California, and it seems like part of Oregon and make a new state. It sounded great! Then it fizzled. It seems like new states are no longer possible, they've made it too hard to do that. They'd rather redraw lines so they get more senators and representatives and leave conservatives in the cold. I just don't see new states gaining enough traction to actually happen.
Article IV, Section 3 is quite clear... no states can be created from already existing states. Granted, Maine was allowed to happen, but arguably that could be considered a case of land being ceded to the federal government, similar to how Kentucky was created.
This actually isn't how West Virginia became a state. For it to be the same, California would have to be declared a state in rebellion, a legitimate state government loyal to the Constitution would have to be formed, counties wanting to leave California would have to petition the purported legitimate state government for secession from California, and it approved, would then need to apply to Congress to transition from a federal territory into a new state.
West Virginia's creation was an extremely complicated scenario that required significant legal gymnastics to be considered only sort of constitutional.
Here's a better solution, states need to fix themselves.
Also, this is just a speculation from one of the prophetic pastors I listen to but their hypothesis (I think that’s right word) is that by the time this mess is all over with The USA could quite possibly include part of both Canada and Mexico.
West Virginia was formed illegally. If the states had no right to succeed then in no way did West Virginia have "consent of the legislatures of the states involved."
Article IV Section 3.
The admission of West Virginia was outside of the Constitution.
If you accept that West Virginia exists then you accept that the South had a right to leave the Union.
Bonus: The south did have that right because they had to "reapply" to reenter the Union.
Virginia was seceded from the US at the time even though it could be argued they did not have a right. Therefore it is a super gray area and the process to admit states from existing states was not needed to be followed due to the turmoil.
But the "reason for the war" was that stated didn't have that right even though we divorced England in The Declaration of Independence. The generals from West Point studied from a government textbook that proclaimed that right.
Actually, it was the Crown, first the Parliament and then the King, that abdicated rule in the Colonies by removing them from the protection of the Empire and making war on them as if they were enemy states. See the Prohibitory Act, John Adams and James Wilson.
The Declaration of Independence simply stated the reality that the colonies were already independent states, but now bound them together as a new nation with a confederated form of government. Up until July 1776, the Union had existed since 1774 but only in an economic sense while maintaining the claim of being loyal British subjects.
What happened in 1860, was in no way similar. 10 states attempted to steal an election and when they failed, they engaged in insurrection and rebellion, violating numerous parts of the Constitution. It was the culmination of over 6 decades of what I call the Dominos of Disunion Conspiracy, spurred on by Europeans intent on destroying the USA from within by causing division and chaos.
We supported Texas in their succession from Mexico. I need to find the name of the book that Generals like Lee et all studied at West Point that proclaimed succession as a right. You truly think that people that left a union the British Empire would lock themselves into an unbreakable union? That is very naive.
More accurately, American filibusters (term created later but retroactively applied well describes who they were) instigated an illegal rebellion in Mexico's Tejas. Why? Because the slaver powers in charge of the USA were pissed that Mexico wouldn't sell us Tejas. Yes, we tried but failed to buy it prior to the Texas rebellion. Stir up trouble in Tejas. Convince the Tejanos, the Mexicans, already living there that their government was evil and fuel an independence movement. Of course it worked so well that we did one even better by exploiting the Texas success into instigating a direct war with Mexico unlike the previous proxy war (Teja rebellion) in order to secure Texas with a border further south, California and what would become AZ and NM.
The Founder truly envisioned and hoped for a perpetual Union. That was the plan. They certaily acknowledged the challenges. Where they were naive was not contemplating that foreign agent would be wise enough to fight covert wars by stirring up internal domestic chaos as opposed to fighting us directly in a declared war.... 1812 made the British and the rest of the Europeans realize that a conventional not war against the USA wasn't winnable.
I personally agree that there is a right to secede but the North fought to keep the South and the South lost, and in reality we all lost shortly after with the DC Organic Act of 1871
No winners write the rules and break them too. You can't say the south had no right to leave and break the constitution to add another state. End the rebellion and let Virginia sort out their problem.
On its face the formation of WV was arguably unconstitutional. However, because VA was in a state if rebellion, and a legislature pledging loyalty to the Union was formed and relocated to the western counties, arguably when those western countries petitioned that legitimate government in exile to secede from VA, their request was granted. I agree that it was quite the legal gymnastics of process and I'm still a 50/50 of whether or not I can agree with the reasoning... it works, but only barely.
There is no constitutional right for a state to secede (let alone unilaterally withdraw as Calhoun and the fire-eating rebels claimed), BUT arguably the right for states to let counties secede from their state is protected by the 10th Amendment. So VA letting those counties leave VA (but not the USA... after permission was granted by VA, the counties were technically territories of the USA), was constitutional... of course only if we accept the the legislature in the West claiming to be the legitimate VA government in exile.
As for the slave states, no state ever "left" the Union, despite what they claim. From 1860-1865 technically there were 11 (I'd also include KY as 12 because of their refusal to send the militia, holding a secession convention, and aiding rebel forces) states in open rebellion against the federal government and refusing to enforce the Constitution. There was no "reapplication" but rather legitimate state governments had to be reestablished under the rule of law in accordance with the Constitution, which after the 13th was ratified, required these states to write new constitutions acknowledging the abolition of slavery.
Then put down the "rebellion" and deal with the formation of another state after the rebellion. If rebellion is against the constitution two wrongs do not make a right.
I agree. The rebellion should be quashed. But our Resident and the federal government refuses to do it. Trump had all the power in the world to prevent it, just like Buchanan had all the power to crush the fireeaters in SC before their cancerous poison was allowed to spread... Jackson did it right destroying the Nullification Crisis in SC earlier. That was just a test run for 1860. Buchanan was willing to send an army to get the Mormons under control in Utah, but let the southern slavers run amok. Fast forward to 2020, and we saw a lot of the same, but at a much worse and wider level. Trump was POTUS. Lincoln wouldn't have put up with the shit that was allowed to go down...
We need to do this in every part of the country where all they are left with is the democratic cities. Let those morons do what they want and leave the rest of us alone.
We will call these cities - the "Oasis of stupidity" and build a fence around it, like a zoo, so the rest of the state can watch and see what the stupid is up to.
People on this thread are touting this as a great thing that needs to happen for the conservative movement, but couldn’t this give more clout to the liberals, granting more representation than they currently have as a single state?
The mention some of the election discrepancies they themselves encountered in CA, and how it was not addressed, and then add other precedents to support the Brunson claim.
The only discrepancy Brunson claims & rests upon is the fully documented claim that more than 100 members of congress voiced concern of fraud and there was no investigation thereof. This is recorded in Congress. No other information is relevant to the case.
My knowledge in this is very little, but from what I understand, Countries and States need to be unincorporated entities. They changed this to making everything incorporated to bring us into corporate control / admiralty law.
I wonder if the Dims will try their actually mapped out plan against this. They have a plan that was put out a few years ago to divide Washington, DC into over a hundred new states based on existing Dim neighborhoods.
Holy sh*t. That is pure cancer. They blatantly say that since the current system does not give unlimited powers to Dems, they need to make use of loopholes such as breaking up DC into seperate states, then pass new amendments to take away the power of the senate, and get rid of electoral college etc, and then finally make a new amendment so that this same loop hole cannot be used again
How about let's start arresting and prosecuting criminals and traitors
Lets not put the cart before the horse. If we just start arresting traitors, without exposing the reality of the world to the people, they will replace those traitors with other traitors. First the GA, then the people will make sure the justice is served.
This. 100%
That may well be "the Plan," but how does splitting up California and other States into "New California" help that cause?
There's no way Newsome, Pelosi, or th Fed Govt allow this to happen. Even "if" this group gets the required amount of votes AND a win or two in the lower Fed Courts, there's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IN HELL that SC(r)OTUS allows it. And even "if" they say yes, there's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY this passes resolution drafts in both Congressional Chambers AND/OR States' Convention. The Uniparty just WILL NEVWR give up such a huge cask cow as California (a state with a larger GDP than 90% of the rest of the World). This is a pipe dream that everyone here (and on VOAT) has been toking on for yrs now.
The Feds and individual States can't even agree on whether to allow P.R., American Samoa, or Guam to become our next States. What makes ANYONE here think they'll agree to give up California?!
Whatever y'all are smoking, DM me so I can score some too, because I need a good hallucinogenic trip right about now.
In areas that have become so entrenched with stinky deep staters in charge on so many levels, the quickest way to freedom may be through divorce. Divorce from the state.
Exactly. And that divorce will hasten the correction of the "stinky deep staters" problem in the leftover parts as well. People are free to vote with their feet. This would be our own version of "divide and conquer".
The doomers saying this can never work are apparently too dimwitted to realize the EXACT SAME PROCESS was used to create the state of West Virginia (as one example) in the past. Obviously, that process does in fact work.
CA has the most electoral votes by far, at 55. We’re the crown jewel of election fraud where it’s just assumed the elections go Left and nobody questions it.
Their worst nightmare would be splitting up those votes between “New CA” (which would be red) and the swamp of Old CA.
Same goes for Eastern WA, Eastern OR and Half of Idaho. The half of each wanting to split is because they are conservatives who have no representation from where the state government resides and they are fed up with rigged elections that never favor them.
Yeah, New California is as likely as a state seceding.
I think they probably know the unlikeliness of it actually happening now. I think the purpose is it advertise to the Congress and public just how unhappy they are with the leadership in California. In thr future, it could possibly be included in a deal to grant statehood to.Puerto Rico as "New California" would likely be a red state that could balance out a likely blue state (although Puerto Ricans aren't necessarily guaranteed majority blue, from what I understand). This would be the same model as the slave state/free state deals they did back then.
Did I F*cking hear Pelosi???? 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 She was fired!
Cant expose the traitors till we gain control. Cant gain control the traditional way. We have to think outside the box. If this is true, and it is possible just like that, then ny is next. 2 powerhouses of dem control vanish instantly.
Do i believe this is legit, no i do not. There needs to be voting out of a state right?
To clarify what Jesus said though your translation does explain it correctly I believe.
Luke 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
What's the map look like?
https://www.newcaliforniastate.com/new-california
31 of the 40 Senators and 60 of the 80 Representatives in the California legislature are Democrats. What possible reason do you imagine they have to let these people loose from their schemes and also give them 2 Senators to boot?
That's what I'm asking, too. Not to mention this needs approval from SC(r)OTUS on "Constitutionality, approval from Both U.S. Congressional Chambers, AND States Convention.
The whole point is to beat them at their own game.
Mark 10:27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
Matthew 19:26 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
The same thing is my hope and prayer for Camp Yesu.
New California State can’t happen soon enough!
nice! now lets do a New Wisconsin an make another state which excludes Dane and Milwaukee counties!
Rural Michigan here.
We could really use a delousing as well. Where I live is a different realm than Detroit or Lansing. We are certainly not represented, though taxed heavily by those accords.
Same with Minnesota. It's only the Twin Cities region that dictates what the rest of the state does, thanks in part to Obammy allowing countless Somalis to take over our state.
Also, NYC and New York State, Chicagoland and Illinois, Kentucky and Louisville, Virginia and NOVA, etc., etc.
I pray this happens...We need something to give here in California. I have never even heard of New California until tonight.
Soon it will be full of liberals fleeing their old liberal state and looking forward to destroy the new one until the whole country goes to hell. Wherever they see prosperity, freedom and morals they will come to destroy it like a parasite mentality that wanna takes advantage of the healthy host. They know they are coming to destroy, their destruction effect never dies with the death of the host, it infects the new hosts and procreate spreading their destruction to other hosts first. I don’t think it’s a solution for the problem unless they can build a border so the sick libtards cannot turn them into the New Commiefornia.
I recently read about a Los Angeles ad agency that moved to Houston and gave money to their 800 employees to relocate to rural Texas areas in hopes of them to bring family and grow the area to swing the votes there.
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.
I see the Lost Cause propagandists successfully gaslit you. It's ok, there's still time to be awakened to the realities of history.
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
Please read this::
The South was right, by S. A. Steel - Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/southwasrightbys00stee
I read that before
I know plenty when it comes to American and US history. I know many people are wrong on this. I know there are multiple sides to every story.
The confederate states' stated reason for leaving the union was to self-govern and protect their own interests, which is a reasonable and understandable desire. However, the underlying reason for their decision to secede was their desire to maintain and expand the practice of slavery, which is morally reprehensible and completely unacceptable.
There we go, throw out the LIE, so that people think it's a Moral High Ground taken by the Aggressor....
Sounds exactly like something some Clown from ANTIFA would say, IF they were living back then....
the Truth is that Under States Rights, the STATE has the Responsibility to Allow or Make Unlawful certain things, Drugs, Murder, Property Damage, Rape, Slavery, Stealing, etc....
And the southern Slave owners had already seen that they were actually losing money because of the Ownership of Slaves, and because of the New Machines that were being invented, such as the Cotton gin, The Sewing Machine, the Vacuum Milker, so they were looking for ways to get rid of the Slaves, and move in the Machines in order to improve their Plantations and be prosperous....
Slavery was on the way OUT,and the Northern States knew it, so did the Rothschilds in Europe, so they got Busy planning and implementing the destruction of the Southern States....
States that were in rebellion, we're in rebellion and could be treated by the federal government differently. Slaves were freed in the rebelling states, as a war measure, to deprive rebels of their "property" as punishment for their rebellion. That's what they get for trying to claim that people were their property.
Yankees were doing the very same thing up until a few years before the war. The fact that the Emancipation Proclamation had so many "exceptions" proves that Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves and just wanted to punish people who dared defy him by trading with England without using Yankee trading companies. Slavery was going to be gone in the South by the 1880s anyway. It was not the real issue.
Doing the very same thing? What are you smoking? Slavery was outlawed in the northern states. They went even further, exercising their states' rights to protect inhabitants within their jurisdiction from being illegally kidnapped and trafficked to the slave states to be enslaved.
There were no "exceptions" in the EP. Some solid sophistry there. The EP only applied to areas in rebellion, because they were in rebellion. Don't want to be punished? Don't engage in unlawful rebellion against the legitimate federal government and Constitution.
Slavery was literally growing exponentially and reached a PEAK in 1860. Slavers spent decades doing everything they could to expand slave territory west, south, and even north (see Lincoln's House Divided speech and the conspiracy he described... that's the real meaning behind how he applied the house divided analogy). Why? Because they needed more fertile land. Why? Because they refused to implement crop rotation but instead damaged their land by only planting cash crops so they could get rich off other counties while trying to avoid export (and import) taxes. It was outsourcing to Europeans because the aristocratic, plantation owning Europhiles would do anything to keep their slaves, keep their luxurous lives, and keep their power (over poor white people too).
Slavery was THE political issue from which every other political issue spawned during the antebellum period in 19th Century America. It literally caused the creation of a new political party whose platform was to prevent the expansion of slavery. Hell, the issue even caused national church bodies to split along geographic lines.
Please step away from the Lost Cause propaganda. That koolaid is a cancer to republican conservatism... yoking yourself to the defenders of an evil institution will only make you look like an ignorant redneck and gives our real enemy ammo.
Article IV, section 3:
So according to the constitution, this will never happen. And plus, West Virginia will be just Virginia again…if this gets pushed. Unless I’m reading that incorrectly.
There is a scenario. If CA election fraud breaks wide open ...
You are reading it correctly but Virginia was seceded from the US at the time and WV broke away to rejoin the US, thus, most are looking at the WV / VA situation wrongly: it is not the same as New California trying to breakaway from a California that is still a part of the US
Here is the case that settled the question over the constitutionality of WV's creation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia
And that is just another piece of the Federal Constitution that Lincoln directly Violated....
He has a long list of actual Constitutional Violations, and I do believe the Founders would have had him Shot with Cannons for Treasonous Acts....
Maybe this will help add to the Convo::
The South was right, by S. A. Steel - Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/southwasrightbys00stee
I was also pointing out that your statement "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...." was untrue. It is conditional.
As for Lincoln, he was put in a tough situation where he had to either let the Cabal win or break the constitution. They are experts in cooking up such situations.
The only question I am interested in is whether, if he had allowed the South to secede, it would have hastened the enslavement by the Cabal or not. I strongly believe it would have.
Trump definitely learnt from this, and while people hate him for wanting to do everything by the book, this is exactly what he is trying to avoid.
Every breath we exhale should be a gratitude for the past mistakes that helps us avoid them in future.
Is the United States a Republic or is it not??
Either the Republic is Voluntary or it is forced....
If it is Voluntary, it is a True Republic, if it is Forced, it is Not a Republic, but something else....
Call it a Democracy, or anything else, but not a Republic, as it implies True Freedom to Self Govern....
IF it is a Voluntary Republic, then States have Sovereignty, and Sovereign Rights, and in those is the Right to LEAVE the Union without encumbrances....
If they Don't, then we have Feudalism under a Sovereign, and the states have nearly no Rights, as they ALL equally lost Lincolns war....
Lincoln had way better Choices, and more choices than to simply STEAL Congress's powers, and Declare War....
But he chose POORLY, and not only did he violate the U.S. Constitution, he Violated the Law of Nations, mentioned in U.S. Constitution Article I. Legislative Branch. Section VIII. Clause X. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
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.
Unusual Legal Gymnastics??? o.0
It is unusual Mental gymnastics, along with some serious Legal Word Salad to get things done....
It all starts and Ends with one thing, a Semicolon, which is the exact same problem we have with Gun Control, a Semicolon....
As for Congress approving the Statehood, it was Lincoln who approved it First, unconstitutionally, and Congress approved it later, AFTER WV had fully claimed to be a State....
Believe it or don't, I actually have ALL of this info DL'ed onto my Computer, as an FB file, but like hell if I can figure out HOW to access it, and I have tried every trick I can fin for Linux....
The ""Rebellion"", which only existed in the Minds of the Freemasons, wasn't really much of one....
Almost everywhere they went to preach about the ills f Secession, they were meat with lots of pushback, these people were Virginians First, Southerners Second, and didn't want to lose their Heritage, had they pushed harder, who knows....
Congrats on your two Masters Degrees in Propaganda, I hopefully, still have my sharper points of History, in order to impress....
That's just not correct. Senate Bill 365 to approve West Virginia statehood was passed by Congress and then signed by Linoln on Dec 31, 1862... happy birthday West Virginia! Perhaps where you are confused, is the recognition of the restored government of Virginia, which was first acknowledged by the President and then Congress seated the new members to the body.
Interesting thing about WV being approved, was that it technically entered as a slave state, at least slavery was legal. However, it included a provision mandating gradual emancipation. Of course the bulk of slaves in VA were in the eastern, primarily coastal region.
So the seizure of federal military installations never happened? The Army of Northern Virginia was a phantom? All of the masses of battles between federal and rebel forces in VA were just false flags invented by newspapers?
Backhanded compliments as means to levy ad hominem are quite the tell tale sign of you admitting you've lost this debate. The only propaganda being pushed here is by you and the Lost Cause apologist Aspie. .
Whatever works for you man. If the delusional world you live in makes you happy, then by all means stay in it
States Seceding is NOT Rebellion....
Who specifically would they be ""Rebelling"" against???
The States, began as Individual Colonies, not as a Group, but Strictly as Individuals, and were recognized as such, as Individual Colonies that Upgraded themselves each alone to the Status of Individual Sovereign Nations....
The Founders made a huge Mistake when they named the United States, instead of the Current misnomer, they really should have named the Federal Conglomeration something bold, like the United Nations of America, and then it would be much clearer, and people would not believe that States are inferior to the U.S. Federation....
IF the States have Rights, and IF they are Sovereign, then the Question becomes Who the Hell were they ""Rebeling"" Against???
Sovereigns cannot rebel against themselves, so Who was this hidden ""SOVEREIGN"" that they were in ""Rebellion"" against???
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.
Is this what Q meant by "watch CA"? (1368)
I have always wondered about that.
u/#q1072 qpost 1072 too
Finally some better marketing. I was into the state of Jefferson movement, volunteered and gathered signatures. Biggest pushback, confusion, and question I got was about the “state of Jefferson.” Nobody wanted that but they didn’t understand that was just the temporary name of the movement. Upon statehood an official state name would be chosen and most in the movement wanted “new California” or something similar. Always said we should lead with that…as well as make it more libertarian.
I do agree with leading with "New California" rather than "State of Jefferson", even though later on it could be changed to something different.
Greater Idaho....
Still I don't know of anything moved or not....
Just my honest opinion. It’s not gonna happen. Like to see the election cheating and everything else stopped first. Then you’d see how red the state really is
I don't see it happening, there have been movements in the past to form new states in California. I remember one where they were going to break off California, and it seems like part of Oregon and make a new state. It sounded great! Then it fizzled. It seems like new states are no longer possible, they've made it too hard to do that. They'd rather redraw lines so they get more senators and representatives and leave conservatives in the cold. I just don't see new states gaining enough traction to actually happen.
We shall see. Maybe Illinois is next. Separate the good folks from Chicago. Then up state new York, then western Washington and Oregon.
Give me a year to move, then plant explosives around Cook county and jettison it into the lake
We would love that in Illinois!
Not a happening
I thought the Brunson case was about people failing to follow their p Oaths. What for this have to do with that case???
This ^^
IMO the whole Brunson thing will be a nothing burger. When people like Juan O Bullshittin push something, it tends to go nowhere.
This is just an Amicus Brief - as in New California State Movement is filing information supporting the case. Have to read to understand what exactly.
Article IV, Section 3 is quite clear... no states can be created from already existing states. Granted, Maine was allowed to happen, but arguably that could be considered a case of land being ceded to the federal government, similar to how Kentucky was created.
This actually isn't how West Virginia became a state. For it to be the same, California would have to be declared a state in rebellion, a legitimate state government loyal to the Constitution would have to be formed, counties wanting to leave California would have to petition the purported legitimate state government for secession from California, and it approved, would then need to apply to Congress to transition from a federal territory into a new state.
West Virginia's creation was an extremely complicated scenario that required significant legal gymnastics to be considered only sort of constitutional.
Here's a better solution, states need to fix themselves.
By voting harder?
Touche.
Voting unfortunately cannot fix broken elections systems.
Also, this is just a speculation from one of the prophetic pastors I listen to but their hypothesis (I think that’s right word) is that by the time this mess is all over with The USA could quite possibly include part of both Canada and Mexico.
Pennsylvania should break into 3 states. West, Central, and East Pennsylvania. Without Pittsburgh and Philadelphia PA is easily red.
West Virginia was formed illegally. If the states had no right to succeed then in no way did West Virginia have "consent of the legislatures of the states involved."
Article IV Section 3.
The admission of West Virginia was outside of the Constitution.
If you accept that West Virginia exists then you accept that the South had a right to leave the Union.
Bonus: The south did have that right because they had to "reapply" to reenter the Union.
Virginia was seceded from the US at the time even though it could be argued they did not have a right. Therefore it is a super gray area and the process to admit states from existing states was not needed to be followed due to the turmoil.
But the "reason for the war" was that stated didn't have that right even though we divorced England in The Declaration of Independence. The generals from West Point studied from a government textbook that proclaimed that right.
Actually, it was the Crown, first the Parliament and then the King, that abdicated rule in the Colonies by removing them from the protection of the Empire and making war on them as if they were enemy states. See the Prohibitory Act, John Adams and James Wilson.
The Declaration of Independence simply stated the reality that the colonies were already independent states, but now bound them together as a new nation with a confederated form of government. Up until July 1776, the Union had existed since 1774 but only in an economic sense while maintaining the claim of being loyal British subjects.
What happened in 1860, was in no way similar. 10 states attempted to steal an election and when they failed, they engaged in insurrection and rebellion, violating numerous parts of the Constitution. It was the culmination of over 6 decades of what I call the Dominos of Disunion Conspiracy, spurred on by Europeans intent on destroying the USA from within by causing division and chaos.
We supported Texas in their succession from Mexico. I need to find the name of the book that Generals like Lee et all studied at West Point that proclaimed succession as a right. You truly think that people that left a union the British Empire would lock themselves into an unbreakable union? That is very naive.
More accurately, American filibusters (term created later but retroactively applied well describes who they were) instigated an illegal rebellion in Mexico's Tejas. Why? Because the slaver powers in charge of the USA were pissed that Mexico wouldn't sell us Tejas. Yes, we tried but failed to buy it prior to the Texas rebellion. Stir up trouble in Tejas. Convince the Tejanos, the Mexicans, already living there that their government was evil and fuel an independence movement. Of course it worked so well that we did one even better by exploiting the Texas success into instigating a direct war with Mexico unlike the previous proxy war (Teja rebellion) in order to secure Texas with a border further south, California and what would become AZ and NM.
The Founder truly envisioned and hoped for a perpetual Union. That was the plan. They certaily acknowledged the challenges. Where they were naive was not contemplating that foreign agent would be wise enough to fight covert wars by stirring up internal domestic chaos as opposed to fighting us directly in a declared war.... 1812 made the British and the rest of the Europeans realize that a conventional not war against the USA wasn't winnable.
I personally agree that there is a right to secede but the North fought to keep the South and the South lost, and in reality we all lost shortly after with the DC Organic Act of 1871
Wait, so fi you say South did have a right to leave, then you are agreeing West Virginia was constitutional!
No winners write the rules and break them too. You can't say the south had no right to leave and break the constitution to add another state. End the rebellion and let Virginia sort out their problem.
My point flew over your head.
As did mine...
On its face the formation of WV was arguably unconstitutional. However, because VA was in a state if rebellion, and a legislature pledging loyalty to the Union was formed and relocated to the western counties, arguably when those western countries petitioned that legitimate government in exile to secede from VA, their request was granted. I agree that it was quite the legal gymnastics of process and I'm still a 50/50 of whether or not I can agree with the reasoning... it works, but only barely.
There is no constitutional right for a state to secede (let alone unilaterally withdraw as Calhoun and the fire-eating rebels claimed), BUT arguably the right for states to let counties secede from their state is protected by the 10th Amendment. So VA letting those counties leave VA (but not the USA... after permission was granted by VA, the counties were technically territories of the USA), was constitutional... of course only if we accept the the legislature in the West claiming to be the legitimate VA government in exile.
As for the slave states, no state ever "left" the Union, despite what they claim. From 1860-1865 technically there were 11 (I'd also include KY as 12 because of their refusal to send the militia, holding a secession convention, and aiding rebel forces) states in open rebellion against the federal government and refusing to enforce the Constitution. There was no "reapplication" but rather legitimate state governments had to be reestablished under the rule of law in accordance with the Constitution, which after the 13th was ratified, required these states to write new constitutions acknowledging the abolition of slavery.
Then put down the "rebellion" and deal with the formation of another state after the rebellion. If rebellion is against the constitution two wrongs do not make a right.
I agree. The rebellion should be quashed. But our Resident and the federal government refuses to do it. Trump had all the power in the world to prevent it, just like Buchanan had all the power to crush the fireeaters in SC before their cancerous poison was allowed to spread... Jackson did it right destroying the Nullification Crisis in SC earlier. That was just a test run for 1860. Buchanan was willing to send an army to get the Mormons under control in Utah, but let the southern slavers run amok. Fast forward to 2020, and we saw a lot of the same, but at a much worse and wider level. Trump was POTUS. Lincoln wouldn't have put up with the shit that was allowed to go down...
We need to do this in every part of the country where all they are left with is the democratic cities. Let those morons do what they want and leave the rest of us alone.
We will call these cities - the "Oasis of stupidity" and build a fence around it, like a zoo, so the rest of the state can watch and see what the stupid is up to.
Kek!
Won't happen folks.
I am new at this but is there a Q drop stating something about watch CA?
I may be mistaken.
It did. Infact this one referes to "midterms are safe" and "Watch CA" together:
Q Post 1197
Looks like the embed of Q posts is broken since qaggregator is down.
Thank you.
People on this thread are touting this as a great thing that needs to happen for the conservative movement, but couldn’t this give more clout to the liberals, granting more representation than they currently have as a single state?
Yup my thoughts as well, more liberal state reps, they already have a shilt ton.
Correct. Not a fan of this at all.
Lol. Groups have been attempting this in multiple ways for years. I doubt anything major will come from this.
New New York guys? F^¢k Hochul
I vote for a New Massachusetts…
Fallout video games are turning into a documentary day by day.
Its not happening. No way California legislature lets them out. Be reasonable.
What does this have to do with Brunson?
The mention some of the election discrepancies they themselves encountered in CA, and how it was not addressed, and then add other precedents to support the Brunson claim.
The only discrepancy Brunson claims & rests upon is the fully documented claim that more than 100 members of congress voiced concern of fraud and there was no investigation thereof. This is recorded in Congress. No other information is relevant to the case.
I’ve heard and read a few times that eastern WA , Idaho and Oregon all had petitions to split as well and form a new state together.
Even if it's an unincorporated association, wouldn't it become part of the corporation if granted statehood?
My knowledge in this is very little, but from what I understand, Countries and States need to be unincorporated entities. They changed this to making everything incorporated to bring us into corporate control / admiralty law.
while I think the idea is pretty cool, I will believe it when I see it. until then, it's bullshit. hope they prove me wrong.
I wonder if the Dims will try their actually mapped out plan against this. They have a plan that was put out a few years ago to divide Washington, DC into over a hundred new states based on existing Dim neighborhoods.
Break DC into a hundred new states? Even I find that hard to believe, kek.
Dims have actually floated that idea. Here's the proof:
https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/01/pack-the-union-a-proposal-to-admit-new-states-for-the-purpose-of-amending-the-constitution-to-ensure-equal-representation/
Holy sh*t. That is pure cancer. They blatantly say that since the current system does not give unlimited powers to Dems, they need to make use of loopholes such as breaking up DC into seperate states, then pass new amendments to take away the power of the senate, and get rid of electoral college etc, and then finally make a new amendment so that this same loop hole cannot be used again