Dear Bubbas: You've been boob-baited. Consider yourselves epically trolled:
I could point out the times, not once, but multiple, I told you this was illegal.(SAN FRANSH*TCO)The state Supreme Court removed the “three-Californias” initiative from the November ballot Wednesday but said it would decide later whether the plan to break up the state was within the voters’ power to consider at a future election.In a unanimous order, the six justices said that “significant questions regarding the proposition’s validity” and that the “potential harm” of allowing a public vote before those question are resolved “outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.”
I will.
That it was unconstitutional.
Well, while I'm up...
That it was going nowhere.
That it was doomed to failure.
That is was a waste of time, energy, bandwidth, and not ever going to happen in a million years.
Well, since you asked...
Now, will those who simply could not stop themselves from slugging this Tar Baby of Stupid kindly extricate themselves from it, wash the Stupid off with some mineral spirits, and learn a lesson?
 |
| Just couldn't help yourselves, could you...? |
Maybe.
Figure it out, if the shoe fits:
When you're beating your head against a wall, it feels so good to stop.
When the Califrutopia State Supreme Court, hardly a ready model for reasoned jurisprudence and calm sanity, can unanimously see the lunacy in a plan, consider yourselves warned that you have sailed over the Cliffs of Insanity.
There will be no CalExit, no Three, Six, or Eleventy Californias, and Jefferson was a president, not a state. EVER.
If you've been beating this drum thinking it was going anywhere but the toilet, your village called: They want their idiot back.
Step away from the ledge, and #Walkaway.
 |
| Pursuit of the impossible past the point of insanity never turns out well for Captain Ahab. |
8 comments:
Can't have any fun, can we? I still have people there that I care about and never did disagree with your assessment, but it was a funny thing to consider. Loved the prospect of all those nitwits west of I-5 isolated, just them and their gardeners.
So...unenforceable laws are ok, but they're gonna nullify a proposition.
Lemme know if you see the big rabbit in the top hat.
Boat Guy
I noted the mental irregularity in the state supreme court in the post.
Point still being that when even crazy people can see that someone's a lunatic, it's time to throw a net over them.
Dumabasses wanted this to be true beyond all grip on reality.
That never ends well.
And the whale descends, with Captain Ahab entangled once again in the cables from the harpoons.
"mental irregularity" ...Not like you to be so ...diplomatic.
BG
Just for Shiggles an Gritz:
From the US Constitution:
[b] US Constitution - New States Clause [/b]
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; [color=red] but no new States 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.[/color]
Not QUITE Unconstitutional...
Damn it! I was so going to enjoy armed insurrection! I never get any fun out of anything. And to think, I had it all planned out on how to start sh** fires in SanFran. Well, I'm opening a bottle of Rose-y anyway.
Apart from West / Virginia has there been a state spilt?
I know some territories were redrawn as they became states.
But I cant think of a redrawing of the border after statehood.
This initiative had about as much chance of happening as there is for a wall being built on the border. Kalifornia is not going to split and a wall is not going to be built.
@Anon 8:31
As neither the CA state legislature nor the US Congress has given any assent to such a partition, it is exactly unconstitutional.
When they get 2/3rds of the CA Legislature, the governor, 218 US congressmen, 51 US senators, and POTUS to all literally sign off on creating three states with four new senators, and dividing the electoral votes three ways, you feel free to give a holler. My suspicion is that the mere suggestion would never even get out of committee in either capitol this millennium.
But I'll dust off my air traffic control system for flying pigs, and the architectural drawings for an ice skating rink in Hell, and we'll see which of us succeeds first.
@TrT:
West Virginia was not a state split.
It was the admission to statehood of a territory of the commonwealth of Virginia then amidst armed rebellion. That's the only reason it was chiseled out and admitted on its own. There are consequences when one takes up arms to declare that someone is "not my president", one of which is no vote in the affairs of that nation.
Along with Maine and Missouri, it was one of three states created as a direct result of the "peculiar institution".
Absent such a fundamental driving impetus, no one, and certainly no senator from any other state from either party, is going to countenance handing CA three times the senate representation it currently enjoys, nor would any Democrat in either house nor in the CA legislature allow the subdivision of the current block of 55 electoral votes, without which they sink to the national status of the Whig Party in the U.S. circa 1855.
And if it did happen by some stroke of unlikelihood, the Water War would commence with full martial trimmings and suitable body counts in about 30 seconds, after which both San Fran and L.A. would wither, die, and blow away from the exact lack of that resource which kept them relatively small until after the turn of the last century, when grabbing resources in lands neither one would anymore command after the proposed (and recockulous for that, among dozens of reasons) split.
This idea was deader than canned tuna the minute it was suggested, and was nothing but humoring the delusions of some nitwit retard with more million$ than brains.
It served mainly as a mating call, to draw the other loons and baboons out of the jungle and out into the open.
Post a Comment