04 Jul 11
The thread about a possible division of California set me thinking:
According to the Joint Resolution admitting Texas to the United States in 1845, Texas has explicit permission to subdivide into as many as five separate states:
New States ... not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas ... may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.
If Texas were to take up this provision, the five successor states would be entitled to eight more senators than the present single state of Texas, and consequently, eight more votes in the electoral college. The latter change would only be significant in a close election, but the former change would likely guarantee a Republican majority in the Senate in all but extraordinary circumstances.
So would a subdivided Texas' greater leverage on a national scale make it worth the state's while to exercise its right to subdivide?
04 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by TeinosukeWhat makes you think all 10 Senators would be Republican? There are parts of Texas that are heavily Democratic.
The thread about a possible division of California set me thinking:
According to the Joint Resolution admitting Texas to the United States in 1845, Texas has explicit permission to subdivide into as many as five separate states:
New States ... not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas ... may hereafter, by the consent of sai ...[text shortened]... age on a national scale make it worth the state's while to exercise its right to subdivide?
If Texas divided into 5 states, of the 10 Senators, I'd bet that at least 2, and probably 3 or 4 of them would be Democrats. The new states would also not be ALL automatic GOP states in Presidential elections unless they were unbelievably well gerrymandered.
It might give the GOP a slight advantage, but not a major one.
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by sh76Fair point, well made.
What makes you think all 10 Senators would be Republican? There are parts of Texas that are heavily Democratic.
If Texas divided into 5 states, of the 10 Senators, I'd bet that at least 2, and probably 3 or 4 of them would be Democrats. The new states would also not be ALL automatic GOP states in Presidential elections unless they were unbelievably well gerrymandered.
It might give the GOP a slight advantage, but not a major one.
Nevertheless, a decision to subdivide would vastly increase the region's political significance in the Senate and the electoral college. Surely this would be to the advantage of Texans seeking to advance their interests in the national arena?
04 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by TeinosukeCongress would have to OK any subdivision of the State according to Article IV, Clause 3 of the US Constitution.
The thread about a possible division of California set me thinking:
According to the Joint Resolution admitting Texas to the United States in 1845, Texas has explicit permission to subdivide into as many as five separate states:
[/i]New States ... not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas ... may hereafter, by the consent of sa ...[text shortened]... verage on a national scale make it worth the state's while to exercise its right to subdivide?
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by TeinosukePerhaps... though it would seem only fair in any case for Texas to divide. At about 20,000,000 people, Texas has more than three times the average state's population; which means that as it stands, they're underrepresented in the Senate. IF they divided into 5 equal states, each would be somewhat overrepresented in the Senate, but not nearly as much as say, Alaska...
Fair point, well made.
Nevertheless, a decision to subdivide would vastly increase the region's political significance in the Senate and the electoral college. Surely this would be to the advantage of Texans seeking to advance their interests in the national arena?
04 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Would "small-government" Republicans...
What makes you think all 10 Senators would be Republican?
(a) vote against there coming into being of five governments and all the fivefold duplication that goes with them, rather than one [that's presumably already too big]; or
(b) vote for the prospect of being [relatively] bigger fish in smaller political ponds and perhaps more able to fudge the place where their public office stuff ends and their business interests begin?
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderIs that still the case if the right for Texas to subdivide was explicitly acknowledged when the state was admitted to the union? Might the text I quoted be considered to express Congress' advance consent to subdivision whenever Texas might decide to opt for it?
Congress would have to OK any subdivision of the State according to Article IV, Clause 3 of the US Constitution.
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by FMFYes, I know it was a serious question. But sadly, I don't have an answer to it. So I offered a glib, but hopefully witty retort instead.
Well it was a serious question, actually.
What's would be the 'free market' v 'social democracy/economies of scale' upshot of subdivision in terms of ordinary people's prosperity, well-being etc.?
04 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFMost advocates of small government are usually also in favour (at least in theory) of localism, so I suspect b). And one needn't assume that their motives will necessarily be the cynical ones you impute to them. Some people really honestly believe in an ideal of limited government, and don't advocate it just in order to allow a freer hand for their own business interests.
Would "small-government" Republicans...
(a) vote [b]against there coming into being of five governments and all the fivefold duplication that goes with them, rather than one [that's presumably already too big]; or
(b) vote for the prospect of being [relatively] bigger fish in smaller political ponds and perhaps more able to fudge the place where their public office stuff ends and their business interests begin?[/b]
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeI highly doubt the SCOTUS would accept the idea of "advance consent" as overriding the explicit language of the Constitution that any subdivision of a State must be approved by Congress.
Is that still the case if the right for Texas to subdivide was explicitly acknowledged when the state was admitted to the union? Might the text I quoted be considered to express Congress' advance consent to subdivision whenever Texas might decide to opt for it?
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeDuly noted. I'm no wet blouse. Mark my words. I'll have a giggle just as much as the next chap. But the uncertainty surrounding the ramifications of Texas subdividing is no laughing matter.
Yes, I know it was a serious question. But sadly, I don't have an answer to it. So I offered a glib, but hopefully witty retort instead.