California as Six States
Two For Thought
By Tim Baldwin
There is a serious effort in California to divide into six smaller states, according to a recent Washington Times article.
The reasons seem obvious with its dire economic problems and politically opposing metropolitan and rural cultures.
California’s background is different than all other states (except Texas): a treaty with Mexico ceded the territory to the United States in 1848; California became a State in 1850 – the Gold Rush playing a motivating part. Perhaps Californians are ready to live in a smaller, more-manageable state.
Dividing an existing state into smaller parts is permitted under Article 4, Section 3, of the United States Constitution.
States have been considered centers of political, social and economic diversity and experimentation. It has served America well, too.
Through this principle of federalism, some states found that self-government and determination would be better served by making smaller states, which Congress has approved several times.
If any people need this tool again in America, it is likely California.
By Joe Carbonari
It’s never wise to underestimate the power of a few highly motivated people, especially if their motivation is the creation of a country of their own, of themselves, by themselves, and for themselves.
Apparently, there are some “very serious people” in California’s Silicon Valley who are fed up enough with the dysfunction in Washington, D.C. to propose a state of their own.
One proposal reportedly calls for the state to be carved into six, yes six, different “states.”
The “dream” is that this would result in the current California ending up with an additional 10 U. S. senators.
A less serious variation, presumably by current non-Californians, suggests that the “State of Silicon Valley” might best be designated as an island somewhere in the nearby Pacific. Wi-Fi, no doubt, would be ubiquitous.
Closer to home, the Montana Environmental Council recently conducted a hearing on the desirability, and hopefully the feasibility, of taking over much of the federally controlled land in the state for the sake of management more beneficial to the residents of Montana per se, and for our more enlightened interests.
While I’m all for strong local input, especially as it relates to the management of our federal forests, I’m not keen on putting them, or most other federal lands, totally in the hands of local politicians.
Sometimes “local” just seems to mean … well, loco.