Secession fever spikes in five states as conservatives seek to escape blue rule

[Anti Federalist]

Secession fever spikes in five states as conservatives seek to escape blue rule

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...seek-escape-b/

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Wednesday, February 19, 2020

You’ve got Oregonians seeking to cascade into Idaho, Virginians who identify as West Virginians, Illinoians fighting to escape Chicago, Californians dreaming of starting a 51st state, and New Yorkers who think three states are better than one.

Separation fever is sweeping the nation as quixotic but tenacious bands of frustrated rural dwellers, suburbanites and conservatives seek to break free from states with legislatures increasingly controlled by liberal big cities and metropolitan strongholds.

“Oregon is controlled by the northwest portion of the state, Portland to Eugene. That’s urban land, and their decisions are not really representing rural Oregon,” said Mike McCarter, president of Move Oregon’s Border for a Greater Idaho. “They have their agenda and they’re moving forward with it, and they’re not listening to us.”

In Virginia, the newly elected Democratic majority’s progressive legislation on issues such as gun rights has spurred “Vexit,” or “Virginia exit,” a campaign to merge right-tilting rural counties into neighboring West Virginia that organizers say has the potential to catch fire nationwide.

“To be honest, if this works — you’ve got a lot of red areas in this country that are totally dominated by a blue metropolis,” said Vexit2020 leader Rick Boyer, a former member of the Campbell County Board of Supervisors. “If it works in Virginia, there’s no reason it can’t reshape the political map.”

Such campaigns can only be described longshots — no state has split off since West Virginia was carved from Virginia in 1863 — but the growing interest comes as those living outside cities wrestle with the consequences of the 1964 Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. Sims.

The ruling established the principle of “one man, one vote,” effectively eliminating state legislative districts apportioned by county or geography instead of population, which hobbled in the influence of smaller and rural communities.

Illinois state Rep. Brad Halbrook, who has introduced a resolution to spin off Chicago and declare it the 51st state, said that “downstate voices are simply not being heard because we’ve been forced into this democracy that’s concentrated power into a small geographical area of the state.”

“Sen. Everett Dirksen said that with Reynolds v. Sims, the major metropolitan areas, the large population centers, are going to control the rest of the state, and that’s what’s happened with Illinois, California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, New York,” the Republican Halbrook said.

He acknowledged that the bill isn’t going anywhere without a popular uprising, and that’s where G.H. Merritt comes in. She heads New Illinois, a grassroots nonprofit seeking to kick Chicago out of Illinois using the Article IV process, which requires the consent of the legislature and Congress.

“We have operations in 49 of 102 counties,” Ms. Merritt said. “We kind of compare it to the way Solidarity worked in Poland, where the people just decided they were done and transitioned from a communist government to a democracy without having a civil war.”

Hers isn’t the only secession group in the Land of Lincoln. Illinois Separation has taken a different route with county ballot referendums that instruct local officials to “correspond” with Cook County about “the possibility of separating from the City of Chicago.”

So far the group has qualified three measures for the March 17 primary ballot and nine for the Nov. 3 general election, according to a spokesperson.

In New York, Divide New York State has for years championed the idea of three autonomous self-governing regions, eliminating the need for Congress to create separate states. More ambitious is New California, which seeks to create a 51st state, and Calexit, which wants to make California its own nation.

In Oregon, three counties have agreed to place a measure on the ballot instructing local officials to begin negotiations to “relocate the Oregon/Idaho border to make this county a county of Idaho,” described as a border readjustment and not secession.

“This proposal is different from secession because it is simply a shift in borders that does not affect the balance of power in the US Senate,” said the Greater Idaho’s petition. “It does not create a new state or increase the number of states.”

So far several Oregon Republicans have endorsed the idea, including Senate Republican Leader Herman Baertschiger, who said in an email to CNN that he would “welcome the idea to serve on the Greater Idaho legislature!”

Also on board is Idaho Gov. Brad Little.

“They’d like to have a little more autonomy and a little more control and a little more freedom, and I fully understand that,” the Republican governor told “Fox & Friends.”

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice has put out the welcome mat, and a state concurrent resolution inviting Virginia counties to cross over recently cleared a House committee and enjoys “overwhelming support,” said its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Gary Howell.

“The big difference is this is the first time another state has made the offer to take them. That’s never happened,” said Mr. Howell, adding, “There’s been very little pushback. The resolution I like to say has tri-partisan support because not only does it have Republicans and Democrats, it also has our lone independent on it.”

So far, however, blue states have shown little interest in parting with their taxpayers or electoral votes. Gov. Ralph Northam’s spokeswoman has dismissed the hubbub as election-year politics, while Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said last year that “I don’t have any concerns of any secession effort actually taking hold.”

The idea fell flat at a recent meeting of the Tazewell County [Virginia] Board of Supervisors, said chairman Charles Stacy, who added that the board “caught hell” in the media for even discussing the proposal.

“There were a few citizens that showed up that thought that was a good idea, but it overwhelmingly had zero support from anybody in the government of Tazewell County,” Mr. Stacy said. “The reality of it is, something like that is not even within the purview of the Board of Supervisors. That would be a legislative function between the two states to change their territories.”

Adam W. Dean, history professor at the University of Lynchburg, said the idea of moving Virginia counties to West Virginia is legal under Article IV, Section III of the U.S. Constitution, but gaining the approval of both state legislatures and Congress would be “extremely unlikely.”

While West Virginia did split from Virginia during the Civil War, Mr. Dean said the move was “legally dubious at the time and only approved because of the exigency of civil war.”

Instead of trying to rearrange state borders or form a new state, foes argue that disaffected residents should simply try to win back the state legislature, but Mr. Boyer said that in states like Virginia with growing urban population centers, it’s a losing battle.

“The demographics in Virginia are not good,” Mr. Boyer said. “The federal government employee base is more and more of our voting population in Virginia every year. Northern Virginia is more and more dominant every year, and the giant rest of red Virginia is overwhelmed by blue Northern Virginia. It’s a losing demographic war as Virginia is currently constituted.”

West Virginia’s Howell argued that liberal state Democratic legislators in Virginia should seize the opportunity to unload their “deplorables.”

“If they get rid of the ones that are supposedly their problem, they could have a super-majority with what’s left in their legislature,” Mr. Howell said. “So they could pass the liberal utopia that they want.”

[Swordsmyth]

The rural areas of any state that is totally overrun should look to join an adjoining conservative state.

This can work, civil disobedience can force the state legislature to agree and the Constitution doesn't actually require the consent of the state legislature unless a NEW state is formed.

Some parts of West Virginia were returned to Virginia after the civil war without the consent of the West Virginia legislature by an act of Congress, if we take back the House we can go that route.

[euphemia]

The lightbulb has just come on. This is why people want “walkability” and amenities in urban areas. They have given up cars. They have totally bought into the idea they can have a low carbon footprint in expensive high rise condos. They can have it all. So now they are following businesses from California and New York and they are ruining Nashville and other cities like it. They are getting a lot of bang for their bucks and bringing their stupid politics with them,

And here I thought it was our great weather.

[Matt Collins]

This is unconstitutional and will never be allowed to happen.

[timosman]

The lightbulb has just come on. This is why people want “walkability” and amenities in urban areas. They have given up cars. They have totally bought into the idea they can have a low carbon footprint in expensive high rise condos. They can have it all. So now they are following businesses from California and New York and they are ruining Nashville and other cities like it. They are getting a lot of bang for their bucks and bringing their stupid politics with them,

And here I thought it was our great weather.

Living for awhile in a liberal city allows you to amass a small fortune due to the rampant money laundering which causes property prices to go out of control. Once you are no longer able to sustain yourself, you pack up your stuff, go to rural America and play a big shot there.

[Swordsmyth]

This is unconstitutional and will never be allowed to happen.

LOL

The Constitution specifically allows new states to be formed with the consent of the legislature of the original state.
It doesn't say a word about moving territory from one state to another and its already been done before.
All it takes is the will to use civil disobedience against the state government or successfully getting large enough majorities in Congress.

[Matt Collins]

LOL

The Constitution specifically allows new states to be formed with the consent of the legislature of the original state.
It doesn't say a word about moving territory from one state to another and its already been done before.
All it takes is the will to use civil disobedience against the state government or successfully getting large enough majorities in Congress.

Ain't gonna happen.

[Swordsmyth]

Ain't gonna happen.

That's what people always say about every historical event.

[enhanced_deficit]

Unfortunately, conservatives are out of luck at this time, only choice they have is between socialist liberal progressive values of Dems ( usually aligned with Soros funding) and NYC Republicans values ( aligned with Adelson funding) also seen as "liberal progressive" by non-NYC conservatives.
There choice might be a genuine libertarian/3rd party who can take on deep pockets/deep neocon wings of both sides.

[Pauls' Revere]

[sic]
Such campaigns can only be described longshots — no state has split off since West Virginia was carved from Virginia in 1863 — but the growing interest comes as those living outside cities wrestle with the consequences of the 1964 Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. Sims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population. Along with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of "one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies.
Prior to the case, numerous state legislative chambers had districts containing unequal populations; for example, in the Nevada Senate, the smallest district had 568 people, while the largest had approximately 127,000 people. Some states refused to engage in regular redistricting, while others enshrined unequal representation in state constitutions. The case of Reynolds v. Sims arose after voters in Birmingham, Alabama challenged the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature; the Constitution of Alabama provided for one state senator per county regardless of population differences.
In a majority opinion joined by five other justices, Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to establish state legislative electoral districts roughly equal in population. Warren held that "legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II argued that the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to apply to voting rights. The decision had a major impact on state legislatures, as many states had to change their system of representation.

[ProBlue33]

Lets say 10 counties hold a referendum to join a state that reflects their political leanings 75% vote it for, eventually that goes to the supreme court and they will rule on it.
Now here is the issue it could change the electoral vote, it also makes red states redder and blue states bluer, creating a further divide.

[Swordsmyth]

Now here is the issue it could change the electoral vote, it also makes red states redder and blue states bluer, creating a further divide.

There is nothing bad about that.

[ProBlue33]

There is nothing bad about that.

The adjoined states might have to pick an electoral vote and the other one lose one.

[Swordsmyth]

The adjoined states might have to pick an electoral vote and the other one lose one.

Which is good, the left has been stealing the electoral votes of rural communities in deep blue states for too long.

[Anti Globalist]

Chances of secession is extremely unlikely.

[tod evans]

Buncha pussyfootin' around.

City folk and country folk don't get along.

Better to have it out than play games.

90 days and it'll all be over.

[Zippyjuan]

LOL

The Constitution specifically allows new states to be formed with the consent of the legislature of the original state.
It doesn't say a word about moving territory from one state to another and its already been done before.
All it takes is the will to use civil disobedience against the state government or successfully getting large enough majorities in Congress.

Not just the states involved need to agree but two thirds of Congress must also approve. Not gonna happen.

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.

[Champ]

Ain't gonna happen.

This is unconstitutional and will never be allowed to happen.

Chances of secession is extremely unlikely.

Not just the states involved need to agree but two thirds of Congress must also approve. Not gonna happen.

With this type of attitude, yes, it is unlikely anything will ever happen. If you do want something like this to happen, then get to work, there are a lot of people that need convincing. This is never going to spontaneously occur with everybody waiting around for it to begin.

[Anti Federalist]

With this type of attitude, yes, it is unlikely anything will ever happen. If you do want something like this to happen, then get to work, there are a lot of people that need convincing. This is never going to spontaneously occur with everybody waiting around for it to begin.

+rep

[Swordsmyth]

Not just the states involved need to agree but two thirds of Congress must also approve. Not gonna happen.

READ:

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.


And there is nothing about 2/3rds.

Transferring territory between two already existing states has already been done without the consent of the original state and by the consent of the two states without involving Congress.

There are multiple ways to get this done and all it takes is the will and effort to do it.

[Matt Collins]

With this type of attitude, yes, it is unlikely anything will ever happen. If you do want something like this to happen, then get to work, there are a lot of people that need convincing. This is never going to spontaneously occur with everybody waiting around for it to begin.

Except that sometimes one has to consider reality. Knowing which battles are winnable and which goals are attainable is critical to winning.

Even Ron acknowledge this. Probably not going to be able to end the Fed anytime in the foreseeable future. But an audit is actually a lot more realistic for example. That's why Ron shifted his focus to Auditing the Fed instead of Ending the Fed.

Also, read Sun Tzu if you want to learn how to fight and win. It will help you "choose your battles"

[Champ]

Except that sometimes one has to consider reality. Knowing which battles are winnable and which goals are attainable is critical to winning.

Even Ron acknowledge this. Probably not going to be able to end the Fed anytime in the foreseeable future. But an audit is actually a lot more realistic for example. That's why Ron shifted his focus to Auditing the Fed instead of Ending the Fed.

Also, read Sun Tzu if you want to learn how to fight and win. It will help you "choose your battles"

Right. So let's do it one step at a time and not tell people it's a worthless cause. There are a lot of ways to go about this, we don't have to follow one man's plan, we can have multiple methods at our disposal, multiple states, multiple movements. Defeatism has overtaken a large majority of the country and combined with the msm's misdirection, has delivered us to this exact point in time where everyone feels like they have given up and/or abandoned ship. Zero reason to contribute to that. Give people inspiration just like Ron Paul did for all of us, not these attempts to eradicate hope.

[Swordsmyth]

Right. So let's do it one step at a time and not tell people it's a worthless cause. There are a lot of ways to go about this, we don't have to follow one man's plan, we can have multiple methods at our disposal, multiple states, multiple movements. Defeatism has overtaken a large majority of the country and combined with the msm's misdirection, has delivered us to this exact point in time where everyone feels like they have given up and/or abandoned ship. Zero reason to contribute to that. Give people inspiration just like Ron Paul did for all of us, not these attempts to eradicate hope.

Revolutions are built on hope.

[Matt Collins]

Right. So let's do it one step at a time and not tell people it's a worthless cause. There are a lot of ways to go about this, we don't have to follow one man's plan, we can have multiple methods at our disposal, multiple states, multiple movements. Defeatism has overtaken a large majority of the country and combined with the msm's misdirection, has delivered us to this exact point in time where everyone feels like they have given up and/or abandoned ship. Zero reason to contribute to that. Give people inspiration just like Ron Paul did for all of us, not these attempts to eradicate hope.

Chasing unrealistic goals is part of the reason defeatism is so prevalent among the liberty movement. People expect to change the entire world quickly and that's just not the way it works.

There is much more low hanging fruit available for victories. Stopping tax hikes and passing gun control in red states for instance. Decriminalizing marijuana and upholding civil liberties in blue states is easier too.

Attempt stuff you can actually win, then move on to the bigger things. You don't start your mountain climbing hobby in the Himalayas, you start it in the Appalachians and work your way up.

[Swordsmyth]

Chasing unrealistic goals is part of the reason defeatism is so prevalent among the liberty movement. People expect to change the entire world quickly and that's just not the way it works.

There is much more low hanging fruit available for victories. Stopping tax hikes and passing gun control in red states for instance. Decriminalizing marijuana and upholding civil liberties in blue states is easier too.

Attempt stuff you can actually win, then move on to the bigger things. You don't start your mountain climbing hobby in the Himalayas, you start it in the Appalachians and work your way up.

People stuck in deep blue states have nothing else they can do so this is a good idea.

[Champ]

Chasing unrealistic goals is part of the reason defeatism is so prevalent among the liberty movement. People expect to change the entire world quickly and that's just not the way it works.

There is much more low hanging fruit available for victories. Stopping tax hikes and passing gun control in red states for instance. Decriminalizing marijuana and upholding civil liberties in blue states is easier too.

Attempt stuff you can actually win, then move on to the bigger things. You don't start your mountain climbing hobby in the Himalayas, you start it in the Appalachians and work your way up.

Let's work on those issues and concurrently work on the one mentioned above in the thread. No reason you can't do both. If you don't have the time, don't have the energy to do that, or it's not your priority, that's fine, do what you can with the time you have. Please don't discourage others. And defeatism is not just an issue relevant to liberty minded/libertarian folk. It's a worldwide epidemic. Let's not continue adding to it.

[Matt Collins]

No reason you can't do both.

This statement reveals that you have obviously never been involved in political activism in any serious capacity.

[Champ]

This statement reveals that you have obviously never been involved in political activism in any serious capacity.

You missed the following statement where I said: "If you don't have the time, don't have the energy to do that, or it's not your priority, that's fine, do what you can with the time you have. Please don't discourage others."

[Zippyjuan]

The rural areas of any state that is totally overrun should look to join an adjoining conservative state.

This can work, civil disobedience can force the state legislature to agree and the Constitution doesn't actually require the consent of the state legislature unless a NEW state is formed.

Some parts of West Virginia were returned to Virginia after the civil war without the consent of the West Virginia legislature by an act of Congress, if we take back the House we can go that route.

That was due to conflict about just where to draw the border line between West Virginia and Virginia when West Virginia was created as a separate state in 1863. It followed the Constitution on the creation of new states. No state has had a part of it successfully become part of another state.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...20-1863-224227

On this day in 1863, West Virginia became the nation’s 35th state. The land that formed the new state originally constituted part of Virginia. It came into being 60 days after President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation approving the political divorce.

In the first inauguration speech of a West Virginia governor, Arthur Boreman said: “West Virginia should long since have had a separate state existence. The east has always looked upon that portion of the state west of the mountains, as a sort of outside appendage—a territory in a state of pupilage.”

Historically, the two areas differed culturally and economically; pioneering individuals settled the western portion, while a slave-holding, aristocratic-led society dominated the eastern half. When Virginia seceded from the Union in 1861 to join the Confederacy, the westerners, few of whom owned slaves, opted to stay with the Union.

For a while, Virginia struggled along with two state governments, one Confederate and the other Union. In 1861, residents of 39 counties in the west voted to join the federal government. In time, 11 more counties joined, and the bulk of what is now West Virginia was poised to become a state.

The mountains west of the Blue Ridge became the eastern boundary, thus forming a natural bulwark against the Confederacy.

Union politicians made sure those counties in what is now the state’s eastern panhandle were included because of their strategic location along the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. The railroad was crucial in moving troops and goods between Washington and the Civil War’s western front.

Disputes about the location of the border that divides Loudoun County, Virginia, and Jefferson County, West Virginia, continued well into the 20th century. In 1991, both state Legislatures appropriated funds to enable a boundary commission to look into a 15-mile stretch of the mountainous border area.

[timosman]

Unfortunately, conservatives are out of luck at this time, only choice they have is between socialist liberal progressive values of Dems ( usually aligned with Soros funding) and NYC Republicans values ( aligned with Adelson funding) also seen as "liberal progressive" by non-NYC conservatives.
There choice might be a genuine libertarian/3rd party who can take on deep pockets/deep neocon wings of both sides.