Northern Colorado wants to secede, form new state

[Lord Baal]

Not really "small section". The voters of the western Virginia counties, at the time, comprised about a third of the total Virginia electorate. (Had slaves been counted, of course, the proportion would've shrunk rather dramatically. But they weren't.)

It's still only a third of the state being capable of voting. Isn't it illegal to hold a vote that certain people are physically prevented from partaking in?

But I don't see how it could have been not legal. Insurgents, terrorists, and traitors prevented the due election of American state government officials in most of the Commonwealth of Virginia; the United States Army ensured that it was possible to elect them in the rest of it. That does not make those elections that did successfully take place any less valid or legal. Had the inhabitants of the traitor counties of Virginia been even remotely interested in influencing the question of West Virginia's statehood or lack thereof, their inhabitants could've, I dunno, not tried to secede, and actually participated in state government.

If the people of Virginia are still part of the US, then they, by definition, have the right to choose their government. Now, their government may have been comprised of traitors who committed illegal actions, but those are the actions of traitors to the US, not the US citizens living in the traitor-state. If a government is to be chosen for that state, then it must be voted on by the entirety of the state, not merely a portion - however significant - of that state. Therefore, the Restored Government was not legal. All of its actions were illegal, including the plebiscite.

Finally, after a late-1860s dispute over the status of two of West Virginia's border counties, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that those two counties were, by rights, West Virginia's, and in the process confirmed the legality of West Virginia's creation in the first place. So there's that, too.

Half the Reconstruction was illegal, dude. The Supreme Court wasn't exactly unbiased at the time - when has it ever been? - and it really couldn't alter the facts on the ground anyway. It's not like their ruling on Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpeas (yes, I know I will have spelt that wrong, I don't speak Latin damn it) affected anything either.

They were denied that opportunity by the Confederacy.

(bolding mine)

That's the important part. It does not matter who denied them the opportunity to vote; that is irrelevant. What matters is that they were denied the opportunity to vote for the Restored Government of Virginia or in the plebiscite that determined West Virginia's secession from the rest of the state. If they were denied the opportunity to participate in the vote then it is therefore an illegal vote, making the matters it decided upon also illegal.

 

[Antilogic]

How would this affect the electoral college? Wouldn't it in theory give this new state a lot more power overall, compared to how much power they have now?

As far as presidential elections, it would move old Colorado, sans 1ish EV, more solidly to the Democratic column. NE Colorado, with 3 EVs, would be solidly Republican.

Northern Colorado would have 1 US Rep and 2 US Senators, all of which would undoubtedly be very conservative Republicans. The US Senate is already tilted to give way more power to rural areas, and this would continue that trend.

West Virginia from Virginia, in what, 1863? This was over the Civil War.

This is right, but I'm thinking about whether counting the addition of the Dakotas as two states instead of one might have some relevance. The Maine-Massachusetts split was further back but provides additional precedent in a non-civil war context.

Since this state would be significantly smaller than Wyoming, wouldn't this also change congressional/districting apportionment radically?

The districting formula used by the Congress to apportion seats is designed to minimize the differences in district size, so it's possible for a cascade to occur where several states swap representatives. There's a decent but short wikipedia article describing the Alabama Paradox, the Oklahoma Paradox, and other problems that historically cropped up with various apportionment schemes.

Yeah, you know, this may not be a bad idea if it is done along with a massive increase in the size of the House of Representatives. 700K is just WAY too many people for one rep. The Senate I like having it small and prestigious, but the house should be the people's house and having so few reps for so many people really destroys that. Let's get it down to around 100K or so and have a 3101 (can't have that tie!) size house. Mind you, that means the current Capital would have to be converted over to just the Senate, which I am sure they would love cuz more room, and then we'll ahve to resurrect Speer to have him design a huge new dome for the House.

So anyway, yeah sure, let them break off ONLY if it is done in conjunction with a long overdue resizing of the House.

I lost the first version of the spreadsheet I was putting together to calculate the effects of changing the size of the House as well as the addition of Puerto Rico as the 51st state. It's on my list to recreate here when I have the time.

Long story short, I'm a huge fan of increasing the House apportionment in Congress. I think the key numbers from my first spreadsheet were about 300 representatives to fix the Wyoming-Rhode Island problem, and if you add just under 1,000 it starts to get much prettier.

I'd take even 100-200 additional representatives. Nate Silver would have to change the name of his blog to 638 or 738, but that's fine by me.

 

[.Shane.]

That's a great map! Would be interesting to see a redrawn US map that took into account all these regional, very local desires, like the NorCal/South Oregon state of Jefferson. Maybe the alternate state of Franklin? I'm sure there's other examples.

 

[downtown]

Greeley, the county seat of Weld county has a population over 90,000.
Looks urban enough to me.
And it would rank fairly well among US state capitals in terms of population.

Oh thanks, I didn't realize Weld county was part of this as well. That does change the population dynamics a lot...

 

[metatron]

Oh thanks, I didn't realize Weld county was part of this as well. That does change the population dynamics a lot...

Not just "part of". The way i understood it they are the ringleader in this whole thing.

 

[Dachs]

It's still only a third of the state being capable of voting. Isn't it illegal to hold a vote that certain people are physically prevented from partaking in?


If the people of Virginia are still part of the US, then they, by definition, have the right to choose their government. Now, their government may have been comprised of traitors who committed illegal actions, but those are the actions of traitors to the US, not the US citizens living in the traitor-state. If a government is to be chosen for that state, then it must be voted on by the entirety of the state, not merely a portion - however significant - of that state. Therefore, the Restored Government was not legal. All of its actions were illegal, including the plebiscite.

(bolding mine)

That's the important part. It does not matter who denied them the opportunity to vote; that is irrelevant. What matters is that they were denied the opportunity to vote for the Restored Government of Virginia or in the plebiscite that determined West Virginia's secession from the rest of the state. If they were denied the opportunity to participate in the vote then it is therefore an illegal vote, making the matters it decided upon also illegal.

All of these "points" aren't actually separate - just reiterations of the same more or less baseless assertion, namely, that the elections weren't legal because reasons.

Thing One: this isn't Australia, dude. There is no legal compulsion to vote and never has been, and if there were, it wouldn't be the federal government doing the compelling. So the mere fact of low turnout doesn't automatically invalidate any result; citizens have the choice to vote, not the responsibility or duty to do so. You can argue all day about whether that is morally valid or in keeping with the "principles of democracy", but those considerations are irrelevant to its legality.

Thing Two: the federal government didn't, at the time, actually organize and run federal elections, state and local governments did. (Those state and local governments still do the bulk of the implementation of any given election.) And the federal government certainly didn't interfere with the internal mechanics of state elections. There was no legal impediment to the federal government permitting the Restored Government of Virginia to organize its elections in such a way. The Constitution did not even start to define what the franchise was until the Reconstruction Amendments themselves. Remember, the franchise was limited to a comical degree for most of American history; by your specious "argument", any and all elections up to probably the 1970s would've been "illegal", and that's prima facie ridiculous.

Thing Three: even if there were a legal compulsion to vote and if there were some legal incumbency on the federal government to monitor state government elections and all that stuff...you're still arguing that the only supposedly legal course of action was also something that was physically impossible: the electorate of the eastern Virginia counties would not have exercised their vote anyway, even if by some miracle it were possible to provide them with the opportunity to vote, because, you know, they were in a state of rebellion at the time. And that's insane.

Thing Four: there has never been a significant movement to reunite Virginia and West Virginia in either state. Nobody gives a rat's ass. All this talk about legality is just irrelevant. What makes it funnier is that it's an Australian who, apparently, doesn't know very much about US history who's doing the arguing.

Half the Reconstruction was illegal, dude. The Supreme Court wasn't exactly unbiased at the time - when has it ever been? - and it really couldn't alter the facts on the ground anyway. It's not like their ruling on Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpeas (yes, I know I will have spelt that wrong, I don't speak Latin damn it) affected anything either.

That doesn't even make sense. Supreme Court decisions are legal by definition.

Seriously, I have no idea what point you're trying to make here, but whatever it is, it ain't working.

 

[Traitorfish]

Wanna be looking at your honey:vinegar ratio, there, Dachs.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That doesn't even make sense. Supreme Court decisions are legal by definition.

Not necessarily. The Supreme Court does after all not exist in a legal vacuum from which it declares its godly truth, but operates within the legal realm of the mandate given to it by the constitution. A mandate a decision of the court cold hurt and which would hence be an illegal decision. It just so happens that no one has the legal authority to call them out on that. Though of course everyone can still call them out on that, it just wouldn't be legally binding.

 

[Cutlass]

Not necessarily. The Supreme Court does after all not exist in a legal vacuum from which it declares its godly truth, but operates within the legal realm of the mandate given to it by the constitution. A mandate a decision of the court cold hurt and which would hence be an illegal decision. It just so happens that no one has the legal authority to call them out on that.

Doesn't really work like that. If the Supremes declare something as the constitutional interpretation, then for the duration, that is true. It's really a tautology. Now a future court, or a future constitutional amendment can change it, but for that time period, that's the law.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As I already tried to convey: It is not necessary to equate legal with the authority to declare something legal. People all the time claim that both are not the same in an instance when it comes to your Supreme Court.

 

[Lord Baal]

Wanna be looking at your honey:vinegar ratio, there, Dachs.

Yeah, that post kind of pissed me off. I'm well-aware that I am more than capable of being wrong; I am also well-aware that this is nowhere near my area of expertise. That doesn't mean Dachs gets to speak to me like a prick just because he has some ridiculous need to get hyper-emotional whenever the Civil War comes up.

My point is simple; only some members of the electorate of Virginia were permitted to vote. This isn't a case of only some people bothering to show up; two-thirds of the state were not able to vote. I would think there would be some difference between people simply not bothering to turn up for an election and people actively being prevented from turning up for an election.

As for whether the Federal Government had any say in the matter, I would imagine that such a vote would need to be held under the laws of the state of Virginia. Whether such a vote is legal or not under their rules, I do not know. It certainly seems ridiculous to suppose that votes held in territory occupied by one military force would be binding on the people in an area occupied by a rival force.

As for the Supreme Court, please point out where I said it did anything illegal? I said it was biased, which is clearly the case. If there's ever been an objective SCOTUS, I will lightly season my hat and eat it with a side of shoes.

I also don't give a rat's arse whether West Virginia and Virginia are united. For that matter, I don't give a flying fornication about half the things I discuss on these boards, including the OP in this thread. I come here for largely rational discussions with other people about subjects which interest me, or at least amuse me. I can certainly stop, if it isn't fun anymore. It is behaviour like this which made me abandon OT two years or so ago to begin with.

 

[Lord Baal]

Doesn't really work like that. If the Supremes declare something as the constitutional interpretation, then for the duration, that is true. It's really a tautology. Now a future court, or a future constitutional amendment can change it, but for that time period, that's the law.

I was under the assumption that the Supreme Court's decisions are actually confined to Constitutional law. That is to say, they have to interpret whether or not a ruling is constitutional. If it is not, they strike it down, but if it is, it's legal.

 

[bhsup]

Supposedly. However in reality how it has come to work is that whatever the Supreme Court says is now the law of the land on any subject no matter what. They are the final arbiters of what is Constitutional and the supreme law of the land, period. The only recourse to overturning an SC decision is an actual amendment to the Constitution directly contravening their ruling.

 

[Lord Baal]

Supposedly. However in reality how it has come to work is that whatever the Supreme Court says is now the law of the land on any subject no matter what. They are the final arbiters of what is Constitutional and the supreme law of the land, period. The only recourse to overturning an SC decision is an actual amendment to the Constitution directly contravening their ruling.

Interesting. Is there any sort of legal justification for this, or has their role simply expanded due to lack of any alternative?

 

[bhsup]

Funnily enough, they gave themselves the power to begin with, and it has just steamrolled from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

 

[Lord Baal]

Funnily enough, they gave themselves the power to begin with, and it has just steamrolled from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Interesting. Thank you for that link.

 

[Arakhor]

Funnily enough, they gave themselves the power to begin with, and it has just steamrolled from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Come on, mate, that was 200 years ago. That's, like, pre-Norman times for Americans!

 

[Cutlass]

I was under the assumption that the Supreme Court's decisions are actually confined to Constitutional law. That is to say, they have to interpret whether or not a ruling is constitutional. If it is not, they strike it down, but if it is, it's legal.

I don't know that you're considering just how broad that power is in practice. The Supremes are an appeals court. Not a trial court (except in very specific circumstances). I don't know how that differs from other appeals courts in other nations, but here what that means is that they aren't generally dealing with the facts of a case, but rather with the laws and procedures of a case. That is, a state passes a law, state officials enforce the law, the case is challenged in a lower appeals court based on the legality or the procedures, and it goes from there until it gets appealed all the way to the top. Now if the Supremes decide, that original law stands or falls.

Vr is wrong that it takes a Constitutional amendment to change that decision. Sometimes all it takes is a change in the composition of the court. Or for enough time to pass so that the general attitude of the public to change, and be reflected in the court. Most famously, Brown v Board of Ed directly overturns Plessy v. Ferguson, and the only thing that changed was that 50 years had passed.

The fact that the composition of the Court matters so much is why it is a political issue. Ultimately, the Court is subject to politics, but on a very long time horizon. If one side or the other manages to stack the court with people who follow their agenda, then they can shape what the law will be.

The Court shapes the rest of the law, because what the Court is actually doing is defining the boundaries of what the government is allowed to do. So what Brown actually did was to say that the government could not segregate. Roe said that the government could not interfere with most reproductive decisions. What most of Constitutional law does is place these limits on what the elected governments can choose to do.

 

[metatron]

[...]

 

[.Shane.]

Thanks Metatron! Reading up on this lead me to this handy wiki list.

edit: Hey, what's that sliver in the NW of Vermont?