Rural Colorado Counties Vote to Secede as 51st State Because They Apparently Don’t Like Math

rural-tumbleweedThe word “majority” I would think is a pretty easy one to understand.  Often the concept “majority rules” is used in decision making for groups of people.  And it’s definitely what’s used in nearly all political elections.

It’s just basic math.

But apparently this basic math is not something several counties in rural Colorado like.  Which is why five of them recently voted to secede and become the 51st state in the United States.

Granted, this vote was completely symbolic (well, for most—I’m sure some of these people thought they would actually become their own state) but it just strikes me as the ultimate hissy fit.

See, these rural residents are upset that metropolitan areas (you know, where most people actually live) seem to be controlling the way Colorado is governed.  And like most populated areas, they’re mostly populated by liberals.

Kind of ironic, isn’t it?  Aren’t conservatives always the ones harping on “states rights?”  Well, this state (Colorado) held elections where the people elected certain politicians, who then passed legislation supported by the majority of those who voted them into office.  Sounds like “states rights” to me.

These massively populated areas of eastern Colorado (roughly 29,900 people spread throughout these five counties) don’t feel like their voices are being heard, so they decided to hold a vote to secede and form their own state that they could govern their way.

Basically what these people are upset about is that elections work.  The majority of the people of Colorado picked a specific state legislature, these people that couldn’t fill up many of the high school football stadiums here in Texas don’t like it, so they’ve decided to throw a temper tantrum.

What are three of the biggest issues they want this new state to address?  Well, they would refuse to recognize civil unions of homosexuals, they wouldn’t support renewable energy standards and they’d place no limits on ammunition magazines.

You know, issues that just shake the very foundation of humanity.  How dare those filthy Colorado liberals force these people to recognize equal rights for homosexuals, more renewable energy and stricter regulations to help curb gun violence!

I live in Texas where Democrats have essentially zero power in our state legislature.  Even when Wendy Davis’ filibuster successfully blocked the passage of stricter rules for abortions, it was only a temporary victory.  Governor Rick Perry simply called for a second special session and the Republican attack on women’s rights pushed forward.  At that point, Democrats couldn’t do anything to stop it.

I always love how conservatives almost always turn to talk of secession whenever they don’t get their way.  This vote wasn’t one to secede from the United States (as some Republicans have advocated for) but it’s still based on the same whiny stance of, “We didn’t get our way, so we’re going to throw a hissy fit about it.”

Just when you thought conservatives couldn’t get any more ridiculous—just wait until tomorrow.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Matthew Reece

    These Coloradans may be choosing some stupid reasons for secession, but the right to secede is part and parcel of the logical right of freedom of association.

    • James Worcester

      The right to secede? Pray, Sir, where in the constitution is the right to secede documented?

      • Charles Vincent

        Look up the forming of West Virginia from Virginia and try not to look like and uninformed buffoon next time.

      • dylan

        At the time Virginia wasn’t part of the United States—Virginia joined the Confederacy. What became West Virginia reformed as Virginia during the Civil War and when Virginia was readmitted after the war, what was then Virginia became West Virginia.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s Wholly irrelevant in the context of my post please read who I was responding to, and note that this is my point;
        “The constitutionality of the new state was achieved when the Unionist government of Virginia approved the division. The question of the addition of two counties came before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871).[17] Berkeley and Jefferson counties lying on the Potomac east of the mountains, in 1863, with the consent of the Reorganized government of Virginia voted in favor of annexation to West Virginia. Many men absent in the Confederate army when the vote was taken refused to acknowledge the transfer upon their return. The Virginia General Assembly repealed the act of cession and in 1866 brought suit against West Virginia asking the court to declare the two counties a part of Virginia. Meanwhile Congress on March 10, 1866 passed a joint resolution recognizing the transfer. The Supreme Court decided in favor of West Virginia, and there has been no further question.”

        Anyhow thanks for showing your lack of any real reading comprehension and lack of any ability to synthesize raw data in a meaningful context.

      • Jeffrey Hollen

        You’re a really rude person.

      • Charles Vincent

        No more rude that any other jackass liberal on this page. Why don’t you browse the entirety of my posts and take a gander at the rudeness people visited upon my comments here before you open your piehole again.

      • James Worcester

        Case law does not recognize the right to simply secede, but hands to the Supreme Court the authority to rule on the Constitutionality of individual secessions. I believe that if you check case law AFTER the Civil War, you will find pertinent changes.

      • James Worcester

        Your cute little diatribe came not close to detailing where in the constitution the right to secede documented.

      • Charles Vincent

        Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871) the supreme court says other wise try again. Please note that this case was decided after the civil war

      • James Worcester

        What part of “Where in the CONSTITUTION” is the right to secede documented? ” do you not understand?

      • James Worcester

        I am not asking about Civil War case law.

      • Matthew Reece

        You will find freedom of association documented in the First Amendment, but rights do not come from the Constitution. The Constitution merely claims that the government it purports to justify will not infringe upon certain logically proven natural rights which have always been valid for sentient beings. Rights are valid because their invalidity leads to logical contradictions, contradictions equal falsehood, and proving invalidity to be false is equivalent to proving validity to be true.

      • James Worcester

        Sir, you just contradicted yourself about four times in one paragraph. Also, the First Amendment applies to citizen’s rights, not state rights to secession. Bravo.

      • Charles Vincent

        The state is a voluntary association of individuals working in concert to assert a collective right that is derived from the individual right.

      • Matthew Reece

        The state is a group of individuals who exercise a monopoly on the supposedly legitimate initiation of force within a certain geographical area.

      • Charles Vincent

        In a just state the only lawful force is in self defense correct.

        “What, then, is law?
        It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right — from God —to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force
        — his person, his liberty, and his property,
        then it follows that a group of men have the right
        to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.Thus the principle of collective right— its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise.Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties;
        to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

        A Just and Enduring Government

        If a nation were founded on this basis,
        it seems to me that order would prevail among the people,
        in thought as well as in deed.
        It seems to me that such a nation would have
        the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited,
        nonoppressive,
        just, and enduring government imaginable
        — whatever its political form might be.

        Under such an administration,
        everyone would understand that he possessed
        all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence.
        No one would have any argument with government,
        provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government. It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts,nor rural districts at the expense of cities.We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions. The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.”
        Bastiat
        Bastiat also stated that a group could exercise individual right the same way as long as they respected the laws as previously stated.

      • Candace Marie Carlton

        I am confused. Why would someone who is in favor of a secession, argue for collective rights?
        That seems a contradiction.

      • Charles Vincent

        Whether as an individual or a group both have the right to exercise the right of voluntary association.

      • Matthew Reece

        Bastiat lived in a time before any free market anarchist theory was developed. He self-referenced in his definition of law by using the term “lawful defense.” It would have been better to say that law is a collective organization of the individual right of self-defense. Of course, jumping from that point to statism is a non sequitur.

      • Charles Vincent

        Perhaps I used incorrect terminology. Maybe I should have said group or community of individuals. I think there are flaw in that theory that Bastiat(were he alive) and other economists may have cited. I haven’t researched them but maybe I should.

      • Charles Vincent

        Hello I was talking to another poster on this site about creating a group where we could discuss ideas and he mentioned you might also be interested in joining a groups that was focused on solutions and talking about ideas in general if this interests you post a reply here and I can link you the thread where Pipercat and I were talking about creating a group so you might look over the rough idea we had and see if its something that interests you.
        here is the name of the article here on forward progressives where had the discussion with pipercat;

        http://www DOT forwardprogressives DOT com/dear-libertarians-its-time-you-face-facts-your-political-beliefs-make-absolutely-no-sense/#comment-1227430662

      • Matthew Reece

        We could form a discussion group somewhere else. I stayed away from that article because there was just too much nonsense there.

      • Charles Vincent

        That was my intention I was going to start a closed group on Facebook. So far it is pipercat, myself and hopefully dissenter whom I am currently having a discussion with. I will let you know what the name of the group is if that is acceptable to you.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ipse dixit fallacy. You say I contradict myself, but fail to give any examples.

        Secession is an individual right. States cannot have rights because states do not exist. Only their component parts exist, such as a landmass, each person, each building, each gun, etc.

      • Siobhan Elizabeth

        There have been secessions of areas from states in the past, so the Constitution doesn’t forbid it in any way, but it’s in no way a guaranteed right either. You have to form a consensus of the people in that area, petition the state you want to leave from, and then petition the US government for admission to the US as a new state (although some areas left one state and joined another.) But the Constitution makes it clear, it can’t be done without the permission of the state being left, and of Congress.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      The two are not synonymous. Remember, there was a war over that assumption.

      • Matthew Reece

        Argumentum ad baculum fallacy. A premise is not true just because a bunch of people killed a bunch of other people and said it was true. Might may make outcomes, but it does not make right.

    • Charles Vincent

      Since when is feeling that rural residents aren’t being represents a stupid reason?

  • I say let them secede from the state, but don’t admit them as a state. If they want to be an unincorporated territory like Puerto Rico, with all the taxation and only symbolic representation, then god bless.

    • Mr Smith

      Pure genius Auntie, very nice solution.

    • Charles Vincent

      You’re as dumb as the uninformed author of this piece they didn’t want to be an unincorporated territory they wanted to be a new sovereign state in the union Hence them calling it the 51 state movement fact number two the rural areas of Colorado provide many things including close to a billion in revenue from hunting and fishing. and we wont even go into the revenue generated by the oil and gas industry that’s primarily in rural Colorado.

      • J.

        Man, you seriously lack reading comprehension skills because you totally missed the point of the article and of her comment. I would try to break it down for you, but I’m afraid it will still go over your head.

      • Charles Vincent

        No I didn’t miss the point of the article Allen Clifton is a literary hack. The poster I replied to has no clue whats going on in Colorado nor do you for that matter and therefore any “breakdown” you might attempt would be in the same league of drivel the author of this article is espousing.

      • Ryan

        You alright there bro? Sounds like you’ve got your underwear pulled over your head again.

      • Charles Vincent

        If you have nothing to contribute move along.

      • Skip Patterson

        So when will you be “moving along?”

      • Charles Vincent

        Never but thanks for the input

      • 65snake

        Actually, he probably won’t. I’ve seen him online before, he’s a troll.

      • Andy Kinnard

        He IS probably a libertarian (AEB his voiced sentiments and focus), but he really hasn’t been trolling much (though succumbing to the desire to attack via ad hominem).

      • scaramongus

        What are you contributing troll?

      • Charles Vincent

        Apparently facts about this article that the author so flippantly left out. What have you added here besides name calling.

      • 65snake

        If you actually got the point of her comment, then why have you not addressed it? You keep posting all these comments, but not one has actually shown evidence that you comprehended anything she said.

      • Charles Vincent

        I am the fact she doesn’t like it isn’t my problem and it doesn’t mean I didn’t answer.

      • Amish

        Eastern Washington State and Eastern Oregon State have complained about the western sides of their respective states for years, and they have a lot more than 29,000 people. It isn’t happening. Just because your small section of 29,000 people don’t like what the others are doing, as long as it isn’t violating rights, tough. If Colorado decided to ban all religions, then there’d be a supreme court challenge because it is violating rights. If you don’t like it, move to a state that is more aligned with your views. Your rights are not being violated, deal with it.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s your opinion . This country started over taxation, the grievances iterated by the people here and in other states are no less relevant just because they have no effect on your daily life.

      • Tony

        I just read everything you posted Charles, and you accomplished NOTHING. Congratulations. Your comments were just as worthless as the vote to secede.

      • Andy Kinnard

        This country started over taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. You have representation in the state house.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not in Colorado that’s why they started the movement. You also missed the point of my comparison.

      • Andy Kinnard

        No, I didn’t miss the point. You missed the point of the American Revolution. If you have state representatives for your district, then you have representation. I am represented by someone I don’t like, but that doesn’t mean I’m unrepresented or disenfranchised in any way (despite my holding opposing opinions on almost every issue). This is how our Democratic Republic works.

      • Charles Vincent

        We are a constitutional republic not a democratic republic please take a civics course.

      • Andy Kinnard

        We have a constitutionally established democratic republic. It is a republic for reasons you know and celebrate. Democratic because each citizen gets a vote. Arguing beyond that is just semantics (no matter how much it might resonate with you libertarian belief system).

      • Charles Vincent

        We are a constitutional republic. Furthermore only one result on the first page espouses what you’re claiming I have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through all 199 million results and considering there are more results on the first page calling us a constitutional republic I conclude that you’re wrong. In fact every American government professor I have ever had calls our form of government either just a republic or as I stated a constitutional republic so you’re either trolling or misinformed.

        http://www DOT search DOT ask DOT com/web?p2=^AKA^OSJ000^YY^US&gct=sb&itbv=12.0.1.100&o=APN10444&tpid=ORJ-V7&apn_uid=4C3F52EE-558E-4ECB-8FB2-020E0E7371FE&apn_ptnrs=AKA&apn_dtid=^OSJ000^YY^US&apn_dbr=ff_23.0.1.4974&doi=2013-09-15&trgb=FF&psv=&q=what+form+of+goverment+does+america+have

        “The outline of the government of the United States is laid out in the Constitution. The government was formed in 1789, making the United States one of the world’s first, if not the first, modern national constitutional republic.[1]”

        “The United States government is a Republic, or more specifically, a federal constitutional republic.”

      • Andy Kinnard

        Congratulations on repetition without adding material. So, you’re denying that a democratic voting process is included in our Constitution? Also, please realize that you’re vehemently arguing about SEMANTICS by way of justifying your ridiculous outrage at the voting process in Congress working as per design.

      • Charles Vincent

        Wrong ” you’re denying that a democratic voting process is included in our Constitution?”

        this only applied to the presidency until the 17th amendment in the early 1900’s before that only state officials were elected. You’re arguing semantics by saying its a democratic republic because it uses a small portion of democratic mechanization in that some representatives are elected clearly it isn’t and like in almost every hit I got on that search lists the US as a constitutional republic you can say it isn’t so all you want but that fact is we are a constitutional republic and you saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so.

        “Congratulations on repetition without adding material.”
        Again you’re obfuscating I posted a link that added plenty of material supporting what I said.You sir need to learn to read and utilize links as in this case you’re no better that the author when it comes to facts and not having them.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Yes, we’re arguing semantic because YOU thought that your semantic formulation somehow retroactively changed the nature of our government. I read your links; I was not persuaded.

      • Charles Vincent

        The US isn’t a democracy so I’ll take this guys word for it over yours all day every day and twice on Sunday.

        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=mk8pxyAWTBk

      • Andy Kinnard

        Charles, that is so pathetic that I’m not going to even respond to you paper-thin point.

      • Charles Vincent

        It isn’t my point and it isn’t paper thin I made my point in earlier posts. I just used this one to drive the point home and rub your nose in it. You’re mad because I am right period, and you can call Mr. Chomsky names as well you’re still an uninformed person that doesn’t know and continues to argue about it. Sorry the facts bit you in the butt, and sorry your ego took a hit but facts are facts and this is the fact of it America is not a democracy.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I respect Chomsky. You HAVE advanced this ridiculous dogma many times (even in this thread); it’s ridiculous each time. You presented no new facts, just a tired old argument about the US not being a Democracy (which is a retort to an argument I didn’t make). Regardless of what you call our form of government, the MOST sacrosanct right is that of the vote. If you can’t respect it, I have no time for you. You’re the one who is so “patriotic” that you offer excuses to justify secession. Enjoy your apparently rich fantasy life, Charles. I want no part of you or anything you have to say or write. People who think like you ARE THE PROBLEM.

      • Charles Vincent

        I think its self righteous people like you that are the problem secondly several places on this thread i have proven that states have the right to secession under the constitution and in the Colorado state constitution as well you refuse to accept it this is how I see people like you;
        “The strange phenomenon of our times—one which will probably astound our descendants—is
        the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of
        the law, and the infallibility of the legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those
        who proclaim themselves totally democratic.”

        In this instance you are but an arrogant legislator.

        “The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them
        and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are
        so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these
        organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the
        human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its
        inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to
        stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the
        organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and
        above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.”

        Show your title to be my overlord and master pal.

      • Charles Vincent

        You didn’t make this argument?
        “(which is a retort to an argument I didn’t make)”.

        Really? Let me refresh your memory you said;
        “We have a constitutionally established democratic republic.”

        Too which I replied;
        “We are a constitutional republic.” and supplied links to corroborate my assertion.

        You replied;

        “Congratulations on repetition without adding material. So, you’re denying that a democratic voting process is included in our Constitution? Also, please realize that you’re vehemently arguing about SEMANTICS by way of justifying your ridiculous outrage at the voting process in Congress working as per design.”

        I then said;

        “You’re arguing semantics by saying its a democratic republic because it uses a small portion of democratic mechanization in that some representatives are elected clearly it isn’t and like in almost every hit I got on that search lists the US as constitutional republic”

        You then replied;
        “Yes, we’re arguing semantic because YOU thought that your semantic formulation somehow retroactively changed the nature of our government. I read your links; I was not persuaded.”

        You are the one that was arguing semantics not me.

        Chomsky flatly stated in that video that America is not a democracy, and went further and called us a Polyarchy.

        Polyarchy is decentralized rule, much as
        the founding fathers of the United States created. Under this system, there are many small governments tailored to the needs and desires of the local populations.These small governments may take many forms ranging from Fascist Monarchy to Anarchy with unofficial structure. Such a group of governments may be under a higher government (much as how the USA was originally created with state governments under a federal government). However, Polyarchy limits this higher government to serving the lower governments by enforcing laws that all agree upon(some laws are virtually unanimous such as laws against murder, rape, theft,etc). This higher government also serves to provide defense for all the lower governments under it against foreign threats as well as threats from one sub-government to another. Such a governmental structure ensures that citizens may live under a government that they support and that also supports them. Persons living under a government that they do not support or agree with can easily move to another government that they do support and agree with. Democracy is simply rule by majority of voters. Assuming that everyone votes (and that all votes are counted equally). a slight majority of the population can (and often will) oppress the remainder of the population. While many modern governments claim to be democratic, there has not been a true democracy in effect since ancient times…and even these were not true democracies, as the majority of the populations were non-voting slaves. In effect, there has never been a true democracy (roughly translated as “government by the people”, as the few that have been created have only given voting rights to a small number of persons.

        And in the US constitution;

        SECTION 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against
        domestic Violence.

      • Charles Vincent

        “I want no part of you or anything you have to say or write. People who think like you ARE THE PROBLEM.”
        You want no part of me because I crushed your over inflated ego period.

      • 65snake

        No, the fact that you didn’t answer means that you didn’t answer. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than to troll the internet spewing random idiocy?

      • I know they *want* to be a state, dumbass. I’m saying the rest of us shouldn’t let them be one, even if Colorado were to let them go. They don’t get to just declare themselves to be a state, Congress has to let them in. I see no reason why some 30,000 people should get two senators and a congressman all to themselves.

      • Charles Vincent

        Because they are sick and tired of arrogant asshat liberals like you forcing your morals ideals and ethics down their respective throats, furthermore in Colorado the liberal legislative body has done more harm than good to the rural residents and they are quite rightly sick of getting dumped on by people like you. The fact is you opened your mouth and didn’t know what you were talking about just like the articles author.

      • Man, I hate to go ad-hominem, but you really are a nitwit, aren’t you? How does one respond to someone who apparently can’t even follow the conversation?

      • Charles Vincent

        I did follow it an neither you nor the author know dick about whats going on in Colorado. I live in Colorado that’s how I know you don’t know crap about whats happening here.

      • No, because if you had followed any of what I said, you would have understood that never once did I talk about or even give a flying fudge about what’s going on INSIDE Colorado, this thread is about what THE REST OF US should do in response to this hissy fit.

      • Charles Vincent

        You should do nothing and the fact that you think you have a right to tell another group what to do and when to do it proves my point you’re arrogant and condescending to anyone who doesn’t believe all the same things you do. If you stopped looking down your nose at others maybe you could see their point of view. but I don’t see that happening anytime soon because you think you’re better qualified to make decisions for us poor low intellect rural folk because we are to stupid to know whats best for us…

        “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
        William PItt

      • That’s funny, because doing nothing is EXACTLY what I’m suggesting.

        What you WANT us to do is to admit your new territory into the Union as a state.

        And again I ask you, why should we? What’s in it for us?

      • Charles Vincent

        “this thread is about what THE REST OF US should do in response to this hissy fit.”

        This statement sure says to me that you advocate doing something other than nothing. I also submit that Britain thought the colonies were throwing a hissy fit as well. Have you forgotten that?

        I don’t want you to do anything other than let people have the opportunity to pursuit their own self determination like the constitution and declaration of independence allows.

        “And again I ask you, why should we?”
        Because the us constitution allows for this type of occurrence.

      • Allows, not demands. Again I ask you. I’m a congressman or a senator from one of the existing 50 states. If I vote to admit your territory to the union, I diminish my own power. My constituents have less say.

        A resident of your proposed new state would have 16 times the power of a resident of Wyoming, and 1200 times the power of resident of California.

        So why on earth would I want to?

        Especially seeing as you’ve shown yourself to be a ginormous prick.

        You want to secede from Colorado, I’m saying that’s fine, go right ahead. Never worry again what Denver thinks of you.

        But you’ve not given me one reason why I would want to admit your new territory as a state, rather than leave you unincorporated.

      • Charles Vincent

        ” Again I ask you. I’m a congressman or a senator from one of the existing 50 states. If I vote to admit your territory to the union, I diminish my own power. My constituents have less say. A resident of your proposed new state would have 16 times the power of a resident of Wyoming, and 1200 times the power of resident of California.”

        Well you assume that there would be no democrats in that new state. Two new senators would do nothing to diminish anyone’s power in congress. and since the house seat are determined by population I do not see how a new state with most likely less than a couple hundred thousand people would diminish anyone’s power there either, this is on a national level mind you. So your “calculations” are either highly exaggerated or patently false. On a state level they would be able to run things in a manner that reflected their rural heritage and that’s the issue here.

        “Never worry again what Denver thinks of you.”

        It isn’t about what they think its about policies that although they might be good for those in Denver, they are also detrimental to those in the rural areas.

      • So, the best reason you can come with is that it might not be as bad as I think? Hardly persuasive.

      • Charles Vincent

        No the reason you think its bad or whatever other monicker you wish to attach to it are based on false assumptions that it can only be bad or wrest from you some miss perceived power you think you possess. So you then think it is your and others duty to strip from a portion of a population their natural right to association.

      • I’m not trying to strip you of anything. I’m telling you, you don’t want to associate with the rest of Colorado, you go right ahead. I’m asking why the rest of us should associate with you once you’ve removed yourself from Colorado.

        As I see it, we’re all much better off if we don’t grant you statehood, and you’ve yet to give me one single reason that isn’t true.

      • Charles Vincent

        I have you just continue to ignore it and it wouldn’t have been me it would have been the residents of at least 11 counties. Furthermore it seems your attachment to Power and your way to maintain it is to resign yourself to apathy in relation to the cause of the 51 state movement and one that isn’t contained here in Colorado but in at least 2 other stated I am aware of.

      • No, you haven’t. The best argument you had was that it might not be as bad as I think. Name one positive benefit to the rest of us for granting your little colony statehood.

      • Charles Vincent

        It doesn’t need to benefit you are you that daft it only needs to benefit the people who are seek to form a new state. How arrogant of you to presume this must benefit you or its out of the question. this is the exact arrogance that has prompted the movement in the first place. The narcissism of people like you is absolutely astounding.

      • It needs to benefit me if you want me to vote for it. I sure hope you’re not a salesman.

      • Charles Vincent

        Unless you’re in the senate or house in your state you don’t vote for anything.

      • So the whole “this is a hypothetical conversation in which I’m playing the role of the Senators and Congressmen you have to convince” was just too complicated for you?

      • Charles Vincent

        No, but I suspect it might be for you. You forget that 2 senators have been recalled and replaced here and another is on the chopping block. And the laws they did pass are involved in a suit to overturn them as they are unconstitutional. I understand exactly how it works, but unlike you I also understand that when people aren’t getting the government they want/need and are not being represented by said government they have the right to petition the government to do what they are currently doing and I say more power to them and good on them for pursuing something better for them and theirs.

      • OK, I can see that nothing in the world is going to get you to actually understand the conversation. I don’t know if the words are too big for you, or if you’re just too busy masturbating over nude photoshops of Sarah Palin to pay attention.

        Just answer me this: which is the bigger number, .01, or .0098?

      • Charles Vincent

        HMMM typical cant refute so you resort to more blatant Ad Hominem. Brilliant, to round or not to round that is the question….

      • Ahh, yes. I’m “dumb as the uninformed author” person who started the name calling. Idiot.

      • Charles Vincent

        Nope I called you on your stupid rhetoric I did not call you stupid there is a difference if you took that wrong or I stated that fact poorly I apologize. The truth is both you and the author are in fact dumb to not have the relevant facts and then to purport half truths which the author has done and so have you.

      • Says the guy who still doesn’t understand what the whole freaking thread is about.

      • Charles Vincent

        I understand this thread is about bashing people you don’t know and spreading blatantly fallacious rhetoric. and people like you trying to defend it.

      • Yes, dumb, narcissistic, arrogant, power mad people like me who just don’t understand why 30,000 people should get to form a state one-sixteenth the size of our currently smallest state, and have the audacity to suggest maybe you should give us one god dammed reason to do so other than “because you want it”.

      • Charles Vincent

        I see you still believe that having political power is a natural right. They don’t need to give you jack no one owes you anything. Here is a little nugget for you although only 11 counties had the measure on the ballot there were a large majority that were considering putting the initiative on the ballot the only ones that actually turned it down were Denver and boulder counties so out of 64 counties only two didn’t consider the option. and from what I see they are still talking to those other 62 counties to get it on the ballot for next November.

      • How do I make this any fucking clearer? YOU’RE THE ONE who thinks you have some sort of “right” to become a state in this union. YOU’RE THE ONE who thinks we owe YOU something.

      • Charles Vincent

        uhh because they do read the constitution lady better yet here I’ll post it for you;

        “Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions reads: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any
        otherState; 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.”

        Furthermore Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871) provides legal precedent to continue seeking statehood. Enjoy and we still don’t need your permission.

      • I suggest you look up the definition of the word “may”. Statehood is a privilege, not a right.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re missing the big picture it’s a right that the constitution grants whether or not it passes is a different issue i.e. people have the right to petition you seem to be glossing that over because it refutes your argument to the contrary. We have there right to petition the government for redress of grievances, Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 merely gives the legal means to pursuit that particular course of action.

      • And when pray tell did I say you don’t have the right to ask? I said the rest of the states have the right to say no when you do.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Yes, dumb, narcissistic, arrogant, power mad people like me who just don’t understand why 30,000 people should get to form a state one-sixteenth the size of our currently smallest state, and have the audacity to suggest maybe you should give us one god dammed reason to do so other than “because you want it”.

        This whole comment implies that people need to grovel at your omnipotent feet for permission to even start the process. this is also you deflecting my original point that you are and the author are talking about a political movement and you don’t know anything about it and you’re basing your opinion and decision for or against on half baked arguments and blatantly fallacious rhetoric all because you or the author couldn’t be bothered with actual facts about why they started the process.

        ‘Yes, dumb, narcissistic, arrogant, power mad people like me who just don’t understand why 30,000 people should get to form a state”

        Perhaps you might understand if you actually learned the facts.

      • “the states have the right to say no when you do.”

        I don’t know what you don’t get about that.

      • Charles Vincent

        “the states have the right to say no when you do.”

        “I don’t know what you don’t get about that.”

        This was never my argument this is something you cooked up to obfuscate.

        “Yes, dumb, narcissistic, arrogant, power mad people like me who just don’t understand why 30,000 people should get to form a state”

        “Perhaps you might understand if you actually learned the facts.”

        This however is a point in my argument.

      • You seem to think the other states have some obligation to say yes, and you don’t have to give them any good reason it’s in their interests to do so. I have asked you over and over to do so — just ONE — and you can’t come up with one.

        But saying no apparently makes them big mean old power mad tyrants who just don’t understand freedom.

        And no, the reasons you WANT to form a state are not the same as the reasons you should GET to form a state.

      • Charles Vincent

        “You seem to think the other states have some obligation to say yes, and
        you don’t have to give them any good reason it’s in their interests to
        do so. I have asked you over and over to do so — just ONE — and you
        can’t come up with one.”

        Again I reiterate “This was never my argument this is something you cooked up to obfuscate.”

        “And no, the reasons you WANT to form a state are not the same as the reasons you should GET to form a state.”

        And you still have no clue what the reasons are and my original point still stands you don’t know period.

      • “you don’t have to give them any good reason it’s in their interests to do so”

        Good luck getting them to say yes then.

        Of course, if that’s how you approach getting what you want in life, it’s no wonder you’re not getting what you want now.

      • Charles Vincent

        How is that so, do you realize they are currently working in the system to achieve their goal… It is the people in the urban environment that are flatly ignoring and marginalizing them as they try to work in the system.

        I am a bystander although I would vote for them to have a new state given the information I have seen and the grievances they have espoused.

      • And *I’m* narcissistic? I’m not the one who thinks that me and 30,000 of my friends deserve the same representation in the US Senate as the 38 MILLION people in California.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes because you seem to think your needs are more important than someone else’s and that is very self centered and coincidentally one of the defined terms in narcissism. All states get 2 seats regardless of population. How does a new state damage any of your rights… That right it doesn’t and that is the fact of it your just wanting to push your idea of how things should be on others and you will do anything to accomplish that including lie cheat and steal.

      • I’m back to “wow you’re a dipshit”.

        You don’t understand how voting works, do you?

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re still arguing from a flawed premise. You have no right to power… and you never have.

      • fester0420

        bottom line. They just gotta get over it. Its not like they will EVER secede.

      • Siobhan Elizabeth

        Of course she’s assuming there wouldn’t be Democrats in this new state, at least not in your new state government and as your members of Congress. Isn’t the point that you are conservative and want to get out of a state you feel is dominated by liberals. So you would go through the whole secession process, and if successfully admitted to the US as a new state, your new member of the House and Senate would be Democrats? Then what would have been the point?

      • Charles Vincent

        No they want to govern themselves in a manner that reflects their issues and problems, not what the issues and problems are in an urban setting which are quite different. You also seem to think that democrats are always liberal and republicans are always conservative this isn’t true. In fact I know republicans here that voted to legalize marijuana and democrats that voted taxes down because they were bad legislation.

      • James Worcester

        Mr. Vincent, I have asked you several times to produce a Constitutional passage or precedent for sucession, and you have yet to do so.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well read the thread I have posted it several times not my fault you can’t read or comprehend whats posted, but since you can’t seem to find it well here you go;

        “Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions reads: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; 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.”

        And then there is the case of West Virginia;

        Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871)

        In short any portion of either one or more states can petition the state(s) concerned to form a new state. Grow a brain and L2R posts. This information is posted in at least 3 responses of mine to other posters not to mention it’s in the US constitution and there has already been a state formed in this manner.

        Ohh and Have a happy thanksgiving.

      • Guest

        Did you happen to miss this phrase in Art IV, Sec 3, Clause 1? “but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State”. Art IV, Sec 3, Clause 1 says nothing about state scsession.

      • Charles Vincent

        You conveniently left out the most important part Chief ” without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States
        concerned as well as of the Congress.”
        You fail troll.

      • James Worcester

        Did you happen to miss this phrase in Art IV, Sec 3, Clause 1? “but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State”. Art IV, Sec 3, Clause 1 says nothing about state secession. And thank you for the Thanksgiving wish.

      • Charles Vincent

        You conveniently left out the most important part Chief ” without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
        Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking Sir

      • James Worcester

        And, of course, you can cite a document granting this consent? My reading comprehension is fine, Sir, your social graces are somewhat lacking.

      • Charles Vincent

        I provided the documentation both from the US constitution and an actual supreme court care wherein West Virgina Seceded from Virginia to become a state so yeah your comprehension needs work.

        P.S. That Supreme court case followed the constitutionally laid out process for creating a new state. and ignoring the fact that I produced them is a poor way of refuting an argument and a piss poor attempt at obfuscation, you lost this debate over on that Texas secession post a while back and you’re losing this one now.

        “Vartra Antonelli

        Charles Vincent

        Very well, you have proven legal precedence to pursue your course to my satisfaction, not that my satisfaction should mean much to you. Proceed with your plan, I look forward to seeing the story in the news about your success or failure as it plays out. Clearly you at least know what you are talking about, I hope for your sake that the rest of your movement does so that you have the best chance to succeed.”

        Right on this thread

        And again on this thread

        “There have been secessions of areas from states in the past, so the Constitution doesn’t forbid it in any way, but it’s in no way a guaranteed right either. You have to form a consensus of the people in that area, petition the state you want to leave from, and then petition the US government for admission to the US as a new state (although some areas left one state and joined another.) But the Constitution makes it clear, it can’t be done without the permission of the state being left, and of Congress.
        Courtesy of Siobhan Elizabeth”

        You lose James so hop back into reality.

      • James Worcester

        Produce a document granting this consent to the part of Colorado that wants to secede, then you will have a point. Second, check that Texas thread again. Your brother John Birchers want to secede the entire state, which is not Constitutionally protected, so it would seem that the “obfuscation” and “lack of comprehension are clearly yours.As far as a return to reality, well, enjoy your “Little Colorado” fantasy world, Mr. Vincent.

      • Charles Vincent

        Its in the constitution and there is a supreme court case that upheld a new state being formed not my fault your head is up your ass bud;

        “Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions reads: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; 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.”

        Supreme court case up holding a right to secede from a state and form a new state, game set match chief. and the Texas case is supported under the first amendment Via the right to free association I guess you missed that. you should really take a civics course.

      • James Worcester

        Once again, produce a document granting this consent to the part of Colorado that wants to secede, then you will have a point. Further, the 1st Amendment in no way grants any authority for a state to secede. It is you, Mr. Vincent, who is living a fantasy, most likely caused by having your thinking capabilities lodged squarely up your rectum.

      • Charles Vincent

        the document I produced is the US Constitution the law of the land. this document encompases both the right to form a new state and lays out the way to do so as evidenced by the supreme court case;
        Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871)

        the First amendment covers the freedom of association which grants states the right to withdraw from the union further more the declaration of independence opens;

        “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
        –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
        institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
        effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and
        transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
        right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
        same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The
        history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

        Both Jefferson and Madison held that states have a right to secede;

        Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”
        At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people”
        meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as
        composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a
        creation, an agent, a servant of the states.”

        Please do better research chief cause you’re making yourself look like an ignorant bleating sheep. Again your posts reek of a child stomping his feet when he’s wrong and can’t admit it, and instead throws a tantrum.

      • James Worcester

        Once again, as per your standard, you dodge the point. Produce the document from the Legislature of the State of Colorado State of Colorado granting authority to any part of that state desiring to secede, as mandated by Art IV, Sec 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and you will have a point. Further, Jefferson and Madison offered opinions with the statements you quote, not law.

      • James Worcester

        Also, try to answer without juvenile name calling and insults. You demean your intelligence.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re playing troll and trying to obfuscate because you have no argument, Art IV, Sec 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution is supported by their opinion. Madison wrote the constitution so I am pretty sure he knew what he meant when he wrote the federalist paper 39. furthermore Art IV, Sec 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution is the process the counties in Colorado are following to get the initiative into the state legislature via the Colorado constitution and in accordance with said US Constitution;
        (Excerpt below from the Colorado constitution)
        Law
        reviews.
        For article, “Civil Rights in Colorado”, see 46 Den.
        L.J.181 (1969). All governmental departments must answer to the people. It is well that all departments give pause, that they may not offend. All must answer to the people, in and from whom, as specifically set forth in this section, all political power is invested and derived. Hudson v. Annear,
        101 Colo. 551, 75 P.2d 587 (1938).
        People’s right to legislate reserved.
        By § 1 of art. V, Colo. Const., the people have reserved for themselves the right to legislate. McKee v.City of Louisville, 200 Colo. 525, 616 P.2d 969 (1980). Initiative deemed aspect of people’s political power. Under the Colorado constitution, all
        political power is vested in the people and derives from them, and an aspect of that power is the initiative, which is the power reserved by the people to themselves to propose laws by petition and to enact or reject them at the polls independent
        of the general assembly.
        Colo.
        Project – Common Cause v. Anderson, 178 Colo. 1, 495 P.2d 220 (1972).
        Power of initiative is fundamental right.McKee v. City of Louisville, 200 Colo.525, 616 P.2d 969 (1980). Courts may not interfere with exercise of right of initiative by declaring unconstitutional or invalid a
        proposed measure before the process has run its
        course and the measure is actually adopted. McKee v. City of Louisville, 200 Colo. 525, 616 P.2d 969 (1980). And governmental officials have no
        power to prohibit exercise of initiative by prematurely passing upon the substantive
        merits of an initiated measure. McKee v. City of Louisville, 200 Colo. 525, 616 P.2d 969 (1980). Right of initiative pertains to any measure, whether constitutional or legislative,and, in the case of municipalities, it encompasses legislation
        of every character. McKee v. City of Louisville, 200 Colo. 525, 616 P.2d 969 (1980). But the people have no power to adopt an initiated reapportionment
        bill. Armstrong v. Mitten, 95 Colo. 425, 37 P.2d 757 (1934). For court’s refusal to construe this section more broadly than similar provisions in U.S. Constitution, see MacGuire v. Houston, 717 P.2d 948
        (Colo. 1986). Applied in In re Morgan, 26 Colo. 415, 58 P. 1071 (1899); People exrel. Johnson v. Earl, 42 Colo. 238, 94 P. 294 (1908); People ex rel.
        Tate v. Prevost, 55 Colo. 199, 134 P. 129 (1913); White v. Ainsworth, 62 Colo. 513, 163 P. 959 (1917); People ex rel. Miller v. Higgins, 69 Colo. 79, 168 P. 740 (1917); City & County of Denver v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 67 Colo.225, 184 P. 604 (1919); People in Interest of Baby Girl D., 44 Colo. App. 192, 610 P.2d 1086 (1980).
        Section 2.
        People may alter or abolish form of government -proviso. The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

      • Charles Vincent

        Its in the constitution and there is a supreme court case that upheld a new state being formed not my fault your head is up your ass bud;

        “Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions reads: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; 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.”

        Supreme court case up holding a right to secede from a state and form a new state, game set match chief. and the Texas case is supported under the first amendment Via the right to free association I guess you missed that. you should really take a civics course.

      • Peter S

        Sure sounds like Pitt was talking about modern day republicans, lol.

      • Charles Vincent

        Democrats and Republicans are different sides of the same coin;

        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=tN6ZZ9KvlHM

      • Rael Imperial Aerosol Kid

        “You think you have a right to tell another group what to do…?”
        Ummm…you mean like telling homosexuals that you refuse to recognize their marriages? Hypocrite. It’s funny how the rules seem to apply to you when it’s on your terms, but you can’t take it when the reverse is true. Typical bully mentality. Flip the board over and go home. Loser.

        Frankly, Charles – liberals are sick and tired of having your backward-ass 15th century “morality” shoved down our throats and we’re finally doing something about it.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Ummm…you mean like telling homosexuals that you refuse to recognize
        their marriages? Hypocrite. It’s funny how the rules seem to apply to
        you when it’s on your terms, but you can’t take it when the reverse is
        true. Typical bully mentality. Flip the board over and go home. Loser.”

        This whole paragraph is a rubbish and nothing more than a stereotype and a poor attempt to obfuscate.

        “Frankly, Charles – liberals are sick and tired of having your
        backward-ass 15th century “morality” shoved down our throats and we’re finally doing something about it.”
        And yet you continue to do the exact same thing you’re lamenting about in the above quote. and you’re calling me a hypocrite that’s priceless.

      • Rael Imperial Aerosol Kid

        You started it, Cheesecake. OK, I’m a hypocrite. And you’re a double-doodie hypocrite. So there. Asshat. You and your ilk embody the phrase “He can dish it out but he can’t take it.” You’re all about your own shitstain of oppression, but the minute someone else gets the upperhand you whine and cry like a little bitch. God, we are so sick of people like that.

      • Charles Vincent

        You assume I am for something and then make absurd claims and stereotypes yeah you’re both a hypocrite and a bigot. We are just as sick of people like you and your bullshit as well. I started it??? Right see I didn’t start anything this article is full of half truths and assumptions on stuff that isn’t factual he never bothered to ask the people involved what their grievences were he just wanted to fling mud at them cause he doesn’t agree. You have not one clue what I am about and you’re arrogant to think you do based on a small portion of what I say or do. So to you I say learn to keep your feet out of your mouth and try to find out what you don’t know before you speak chief.

      • Rael Imperial Aerosol Kid

        Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s right tuck tail and run.

      • Rael Imperial Aerosol Kid

        A Winner Never Quits
        Quitters Never Win
        …but only an idiot never wins and never quits.

      • Charles Vincent

        Keep telling yourself that it apparently helps you keep on keeping on…

      • fester0420

        I agree Auntie, we should move them to Texas and then sell Texas to Mexico.

      • fester0420

        Just how have you been persecuted here. Are you that afraid of gay people? Not enough bullets for you, just where have any of your rights been taken away?

      • Charles Vincent

        Well not afraid of anyone but way to stereotype someone, careful your bigotry is showing.

        Hmm how have right been violated…. well lets start with the FISA Court and all its progeny up through the NSA currently and along those lines the violations of habeas corpus via indefinite detentions that several presidents have used and Guantanamo bay then there is the use of drones to kill at least 3 American citizens with out due process.

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States#Habeas_corpus_in_the_21st_Century

      • Jo Clark

        You’ve proven the entire point of the article, acting like a toddler stomping his feet because he didn’t get his way. What part of “majority rules” do you not comprehend? If you want to live someplace where you, and only you, get to make the laws, I suggest you find yourself an island to purchase somewhere. Good luck on that.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s just it in a republic which is what our form of government is the majority has no right to enforce its will on the minority go back and retake a civics class.

      • Vartra Antonelli

        You take one Charles Vincent, since the founding of our nation new states have only been elevated to the level of statehood after reaching certain requirements, the same requirements used to ratify all states added since the original 13. The Constitution actually would deny these counties the privilege of statehood because they would achieve it by splitting an existing state. However the process used historically to ratify statehood may still be applied if the leverage is brought to bear showing that section of the Constitution was in conflict with another part. Then the newly created territory would have to follow the path to statehood, which if the government used the same path they historically have (quoted below) then the state would have to be ratified by the House AND the Senate, and then the President would have to sign off on it as a Joint Resolution. Those last two steps, the choice of self-governance by the House, the Senate, and the President, are what Auntie Warhol suggests be the stake in the coffin for these counties’ bid for statehood. A completely legal, time-honored, perhaps even traditional process that if you can’t accept, I second the suggestion you purchase an island.
        The territory holds a referendum vote to determine the people’s desire for or against statehood.

        Should a majority vote to seek statehood, the territory petitions the U.S. Congress for statehood.

        The territory, if it has not already done so, is required to adopt a form of government and constitution that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

        The U.S. Congress – both House and Senate – pass, by a simple majority vote, a joint resolution accepting the territory as a state.

        The President of the United States signs the joint resolution and the territory is acknowledged as a U.S. state.

      • Charles Vincent

        This what you’re referring to?
        “Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions reads: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; 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.”
        This is the remedy in the constitution and the 51st state movement is following it from the bottom at the county level in an attempt to get it on the states agenda and from there should it pass to the national congress nothing in what you said automatically disqualifies that.

      • Vartra Antonelli

        Did you seriously just reply by reinforcing what I said and then act like you still have a case? Counties in Colorado would be within the Jurisdiction of Colorado and therefor Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, (which you so kindly provided, I’m sorry I could not find the correct clause myself) applies, making the bid for statehood of said counties unconstitutional. The only thing your reply accomplishes is admitting that there is an additional step, Colorado must agree to the formation of the new state before it can begin on the rest of the path to statehood. Now, I want to make it clear, IF you and others who agree with you can get Colorado to accept your secession and agree to recognize you as a legally separate territory, and if you can pass all the requirements for the path to statehood, I will gladly accept your new state, have you picked a name yet?, as the 51st State in the United States of America. Until such time as you accomplish step one, the legal secession by right of the state you are seceding from admiting your sovereignty, you have better things to do if you want this political recognition and representation you so ardently claim you desire. I am not “poo-poo”ing on your desire to for a new level of political representation for your area, indeed I applaud it, however I will not accept you taking such power (and will take such steps as I, a natural-born citizen of this nation, can to prevent you interfering in political process at a level you have not gained proper authorization to.

      • Charles Vincent

        No it doesn’t make it unconstitutional it says that it’s the only way it can be achieved and be in accordance with the Constitution.

        “There have been secessions of areas from states in the past, so the
        Constitution doesn’t forbid it in any way, but it’s in no way a
        guaranteed right either. You have to form a consensus of the people in
        that area, petition the state you want to leave from, and then petition
        the US government for admission to the US as a new state (although some
        areas left one state and joined another.) But the Constitution makes it
        clear, it can’t be done without the permission of the state being left,
        and of Congress.”

        Courtesy of Siobhan Elizabeth

      • Vartra Antonelli

        The Constitution saying something can not be done in a certain way does not mean it is unConstitutional to do it that way? Could you please cite specific Supreme Court of the United States cases, as the SCOTUS deals with primarily Constitutional Law cases thus making them pretty much the go-to source for what is and what is not Constitutional, in fact that is one of their primary duties, reviewing laws, Acts, etc and deciding if they are Constitutional or not. You seem to have many of your facts together, so I’m listening (though I may not reply until tomorrow as I have to get up early for work).

      • Charles Vincent

        Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871)

      • Vartra Antonelli

        Very well, you have proven legal precedence to pursue your course to my satisfaction, not that my satisfaction should mean much to you. Proceed with your plan, I look forward to seeing the story in the news about your success or failure as it plays out. Clearly you at least know what you are talking about, I hope for your sake that the rest of your movement does so that you have the best chance to succeed.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not about my or your satisfaction. Although I live in the state and one county that voted was where I grew up is irrelevant what is however relevant is people who spread lies and misinformation or who speak without bothering to learn all the facts and or in the case of this thread denigrate people they know nothing about for whatever reason. As to the movement they have a page on FB perhaps the people here and the author should attempt to see what their grievances actually are, they don’t have to agree with them but the sure as hell need to respect their right to have them and to pursuit a course of action, in much the same way that those on the left want people to respect their causes LGBT, legalization of drugs, Abortion Etc…

      • Vartra Antonelli

        Ok, I tried to be respectful, but you continue to be venomful. YOU are the one denigrating others. The OP of the thread pointed out that just because you petition for statehood and follow the rules to get there does not mean it has to be granted to you. They even said go ahead and try. Instead of just doing it, you replied with venom and hatred. I had wished you well, now I just wish you would grow a brain and either buckle down and accept the majority of voters/voting blocks in your state don’t agree with you (this does not mean your voice is not heard you ignorant fool, just that majority rules, the BASE PRINCIPLE of democracy is working and you are not the majority) or move to a state where you are in agreement with the majority. Either of those courses of action would be the ones an intelligent mature individual would take, instead you whine and cry and b*^%h like a baby that got strained peas instead of pudding. I don’t agree with your position, I don’t support it, but I do recognize that if you feel things are unfair you have a right to take actions within the confines of the law to right them. Instead of saying anybody who isn’t there doesn’t understand and is only trying to denigrate (fifty-cent word for insult or belittle, overcompensating much?) your situation, how about instead of all the whining and insulting you are doing, you just BUCKLE DOWN AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! It would certainly do a whole lot more to bring attention to what you feel are the actual issues (I admit ignorance, I also admit I don’t care as there seem to be people with far greater knowledge of the issues on both sides of the fence who are actually involved) if you take mature action on it instead of making yourself look like a ten year old that found a few law books and thinks that makes him a Constitutional lawyer. You were looking quite intelligent in your conversation with me until your last reply when you frankly just became an immature squat.

      • Charles Vincent

        ???? Well you took that wrong but good to see your true nature.

        “BASE PRINCIPLE of democracy is working and you are not the majority)”

        This country is a republic not a democracy. See this link for the details on how they are different;

        http://www DOT diffen DOT com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

        “YOU are the one denigrating others.”
        Calling people on their hypocrisy isn’t denigration.

      • Vartra Antonelli

        Ignorant bigot! What inalienable right is being taken away? I’ve seen you mention none. Majority rules still apply within a republic, it is limited in that the majority can not do certain things, but it is still up to the will of the majority within the limitations of the law of the land to control what the government does. If you feel the majority have broken the law, then secession is not the correct answer, that would be to fight to repeal the things they have done illegally. However you’ve made no discussion on that tactic, instead you’ve accused people of idiocy while talking idiocy yourself, been a bigot while accusing everyone else of being one while claiming to not be one yourself, and WHO THE DAMNED GREEN F)*& WAS BEING HYPOCRITICAL IN SAYING USE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND I’LL USE MINE TO PROTECT MINE? NOBODY YOU BRAINDEAD DIMWIT! As to me taking it wrong, NOPE!
        You are the one taking sh&t wrong. You take it as your voice is not heard because you are overruled by the GROUND BLANKING RULE of how our government works because you are outvoted. WHAT YOU REALLY WANT IS ONLY THE VOTES OF THOSE YOU AGREE WITH TO BE COUNTED. NOTHING LESS WILL SATISFY SOMEONE WHO FEELS THEY HAVE BEEN IGNORED, THEIR VOTE NOT HEARD JUST BECAUSE THEY DID NOT VOTE IN THE MAJORITY. Well wake up, put your big boy pants on and grow the piss up.

      • Charles Vincent

        ” WHAT YOU REALLY WANT IS ONLY THE VOTES OF THOSE YOU AGREE WITH TO BE
        COUNTED. NOTHING LESS WILL SATISFY SOMEONE WHO FEELS THEY HAVE BEEN
        IGNORED, THEIR VOTE NOT HEARD JUST BECAUSE THEY DID NOT VOTE IN THE
        MAJORITY.”

        This is the base definition of MOB rule.

        “If you feel the majority have broken the law, then secession is not the correct answer, that would be to fight to repeal the things they have done illegally. However you’ve made no discussion on that tactic,”

        The topic of this whole thread deals with this where have you been. See also my reply to Auntie Warhol.

      • Charles Vincent

        “instead you whine and cry and b*^%h like a baby that got strained peas instead of pudding.”

        Nice now your marginalizing peoples legitimate grievances, to which they elected to solve politically like you touted they should do… then when I call the author out for posting an article that clearly lacks many relevant facts and spins the topic in a truly negative and denigrating way and the people on the thread base their arguments and opinions of that and I am the asshole???? Get a grip. My statement that set off your rancor filled posts was meant as an olive branch to you for being rational but instead you jump of the deep end with the rest of the lemmings and consequently blame me.

      • Vartra Antonelli

        There was no olive branch in your previous post, nor the one before it. You took my explanation of the situation as I understood it and insulted me, lumped me in with everyone who you seem to feel feels you mean jack squat. I don’t think your opinion or position means jack squat, I think it holds as much sway as any other single citizen in the nation. That said, you feel that the votes of 800 should outweigh the votes of 900 (I’m sure not the real numbers, just pulling random ones out of the air. Even you have admitted the issue is those in the comparatively lightly populated counties feel their vote is being ignored because the vote of more heavily populated counties and areas outnumbers them. I’m sorry, your understanding of how the political system works. It is not MOB rule that says the votes of majority are the votes that rule, it is the way of BOTH Democracy and a Republic. They reach that point in different ways, but despite your claims to the contrary, in that way they are the same. In a Democracy it is direct and unrestricted in what it can do. In a Republic it is indirect by means of electing Representatives who will REPRESENT the ones that elect them and the vote of the majority of those Representatives makes the rules if it is within the laws restricting them. This is what has happened in Colorado, I don’t need to know the exact details to know this, I have it from you and everyone else that has talked with even the slightest knowledge on what is going on. The minority feels they are being ignored because they are outvoted by the majority. Pull up your pants and deal with it, it happens everyday. What set off my rancor filled post was your supercilious attitude that you are the SINGLE AND ONLY human being with an opinion that matters. Your problem with the OP you claim is she doesn’t know the problem and shouldn’t open her mouth. She didn’t say shit about the problem. She said “go ahead and excersize your right to try, I’ll support my representative to say no as is his/her right.” She has made absolutely jack on comments of what issues Colorado is suffering, just that she doesn’t support adding a 51st state to the Republic/Union/Nation/whatever name makes your shorts tight. You have whined, argued, and insulted everyone who has spoken to you and as of now, I no longer care to speak to you. You have proven you are willfully twisting what people say in your head so you are the only intelligent person and everyone else is an asshole. I have no desire to hear, see, or communicate with with willful ignorance, and intentional assholeness, especially when you take my olive branches and set them on fire and call me the aggressive one. Peace out, and go sit in an active car compactor.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not about my or your satisfaction. Although I live in the state and one county that voted was where I grew up is irrelevant what is however relevant is people who spread lies and misinformation or who speak without bothering to learn all the facts and or in the case of this thread denigrate people they know nothing about for whatever reason. As to the movement they have a page on FB perhaps the people here and the author should attempt to see what their grievances actually are, they don’t have to agree with them but the sure as hell need to respect theirright to have them and to pursuit a course of action, in much the same way that those on the left want people to respect their causes LGBT, legalization of drugs, Abortion Etc…

        ^ The above post was meant as an olive branch I didn’t lump you into anything as I shall illustrate.

        You said and I quote ” Proceed with your plan, I look forward to seeing the story in the news about your success or failure as it plays out.”

        To which I said this “As to the movement they have a page on FB perhaps the people here and
        the author should attempt to see what their grievances actually are, they don’t have to agree with them but the sure as hell need to respect their right to have them and to pursuit a course of action, in much the same way that those on the left want people to respect their causes LGBT, legalization of drugs, Abortion Etc…”
        Notice I furnished you with place to track its development like you had talked about previously and which I quoted above. Also notice I used they not you which was intended to highlight others on this thread that are posting not you.
        also Notice I referred to causes on the left and how they wish to same liberties and respect to live how they choose, and I used that to compare and convey the same feeling that those in the 51 State movement wish to be afforded the same courtesy requested of them for those causes.

      • Vartra Antonelli

        At what point did I stop affording you or them that courtesy? Even once you pissed me off I acknowledged that as long as you follow the rules you have the right to try, although I did also play the devil’s advocate pointing out that just because you try does not mean that the representatives at any point that would have to vote to accept or deny your proposal do not have to accept it just because you followed the rules. As to the points you bring up as what you meant to be olive branches, I’ll concede them as such on grounds of your ignorance, ignorance of the fact that I tend to vote liberal and would most likely be on the same side as all the individuals you denigrated because you don’t think the same way they, and I do. Perhaps I am more liberal than most in that I think individuals should be allowed to do absolutely anything they want as long as they do so within the rules, laws, and governing regulations. I personally feel that if you can accomplish your goals within the rules of the system you should. But you have to remember, you aren’t ranting at pictures on a screen, you are insulting REAL PEOPLE. Just because they don’t know as much you do, don’t agree with you, or you just don’t like them, doesn’t mean they are stupid and deserved to be called stupid, this is what you have done, and is the thing that pissed me off. If you are conservative, then I would be the ultimate “filthy liberal”, but I say give people enough rope to either hang themselves with or to pull themselves up to where they want to be. YOU did not do this before you started insulting Auntie Warhol, she made one comment indicating she does not support the 51st State Initiative, and you jumped on her, ASSUMING she doesn’t know what’s going on in Colorado, she said nothing about it and you started in her for “showing an ignorance on the subject”. YOU had no interest in what she actually said, just that she didn’t support you, that made her your enemy, and yeah, it does make her your opponent, it does NOT make her ignorant of why you are doing what you are doing. Just because the article she commented on is lacking in vital information does not mean she is ignorant on the subject. I’m not saying she is as knowledgeable about the subject as you, I don’t know that, and based solely on what I’ve seen here, you can’t know that either. THAT is what pisses me off about you. You don’t care for the fact you jumped in in ignorance, just that you found a platform to shout your message from. And I only marginalized you, for the way you are acting on this thread. You have been shown to be less about your cause and more about bluster, and ignorant of the fact that your cause is the standard of the affair, I vote blue in a red state but you aren’t hearing me bitch about my voice not being heard are you? I’m not throwing tantrums on websites and telling people who don’t agree with me they are insulting me because they don’t think my vote is any more special than anyone else’s.

      • Charles Vincent

        “At what point did I stop affording you or them that courtesy?”
        I wasn’t referring to you I was making a comparison.

        “YOU had no interest in what she actually said,”

        I did have an interest in what she said but her arguments are based on an article that has very little factual information in it. and like wise she didn’t bother to find out what the movement was or what their grievances were and neither did the author of this piece.

        ” Just because the article she commented on is lacking in vital information does not mean she is ignorant on the subject.”

        When one comments on a topic and one does not know the details of that topic one is most definitely ignorant about that topic.

      • Vartra Antonelli

        Again, you assume she does not know the details of the topic, purely because the article doesn’t give them. Show me where she actually shows she doesn’t know the details of the topic. I have seen her make no such comment, although I have not looked further than this thread to see what she has to say.
        You still claim to be the only one here that knows the details of the situation.
        And here’s a news flash for you, when I clicked the link for this story I expected to see an argument between the Creationist camp and the Big Bang camp, not voters feeling disenfranchised because they got outvoted. So, yeah I get where you’re coming from on the article being light on details.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Again, you assume she does not know the details of the topic, purely because the article doesn’t give them.”

        The back and forth between her and I were quite extensive and I flatly called her out on it and she never refuted my claim so I can only concluded that she knew only the details in the piece.

        “You still claim to be the only one here that knows the details of the situation.”
        Well I subscribe to the 51st State FB page and I have been following it closely, so yes I know quite a bit more that the author and the people on this page. Do I know all the details No but only the people running the initiative would know all the details.

        I never know what to expect when I click links on this site. And from what I understand Colorado isn’t the only state with an initiative like this there are a few others as well, California and a state back east.

      • Charles Vincent

        Dear sir You missed this part; ” without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
        A county is part of the state and if said counties joined the movement and therefor voted on legislation in the respective counties and that legislation passed it could then be entered in to the state legislative body for consideration which is how the process works.

        For reference to this see the process by which West Virginia became a state using this process;

        Separation

        John S. Carlile, a leader during the First Wheeling Convention

        In Richmond on April 17, 1861, the 49 delegates from the future state
        of West Virginia voted 17 in favor of the Ordinance of Secession which
        provided for Virginia’s secession from the Union, 30 voted against,[3] and two of those delegates abstained.[4] Almost immediately after the adoption of the ordinance a mass meeting at Clarksburg recommended that each county in north-western Virginia send delegates to a convention to meet in Wheeling on May 13, 1861.

        When the First Wheeling Convention
        met, four hundred and twenty-five delegates from twenty-five counties
        were present, but soon there was a division of sentiment. Some delegates
        favored the immediate formation of a new state, while others argued
        that, as Virginia’s secession had not yet been ratified or become
        effective, such action would constitute revolution against the United
        States.[5]
        It was decided that if the ordinance were adopted (of which there was
        little doubt) another convention including the members-elect of the
        legislature should meet at Wheeling in June.

        At the election (May 23, 1861), secession was ratified by a large
        majority in the state as a whole. But, in the western counties that
        would form the state of West Virginia the vote was approximately 34,677
        against and 19,121 for ratification of the Ordinance of Secession.

        Counties (in green) Approving Virginia’s Secession from the U.S.

        The Second Wheeling Convention met as agreed on June 11 and adopted
        “A Declaration of the People of Virginia.” The document, drafted by
        former state senator John S. Carlile,
        declared that since the Secession Convention had been called without
        the consent of the people, all its acts were illegal. It further
        declared the pro-secession government in Richmond void and called for a
        reorganization of the state government, taking the line that all who
        adhered to the Ordinance of Secession had effectively vacated their
        offices. An act for the reorganization of the government was passed on
        June 19. The next day Francis H. Pierpont was chosen governor of the “Restored Government of Virginia,”
        other officers were elected and the convention adjourned. The
        legislature, composed of the members from the western counties who had
        been elected on May 23 and some of the holdover senators who had been
        elected in 1859, met at Wheeling on July 1, filled the remainder of the
        state offices, completed the reorganization of the state government and
        elected two United States senators who were recognized by Washington.
        There were, therefore, two governments claiming to represent all of
        Virginia, one owing allegiance to the United States and one to the
        Confederacy.

        There had been sentiment even before the war for the northwestern
        counties of Virginia to break away and form a new state. However, the
        federal Constitution did not allow a new state to be created out of an
        existing state unless the existing state’s legislature gave its consent.
        The pro-northern Restored Government asserted its authority to give
        such approval, and authorized the creation of the state of Kanawha,
        consisting of most of the counties that now comprise West Virginia. A
        little over one month later, Kanawha was renamed West Virginia. The
        Wheeling Convention, which had taken a recess until August 6,
        reassembled on August 20 and called for a popular vote on the formation
        of a new state and for a convention to frame a constitution if the vote
        should be favorable.

        At the election (October 24, 1861), 18,408 votes were cast for the
        new state and only 781 against. At this time West Virginia had nearly
        70,000 qualified voters,[6] and the May 23 vote on secession had drawn nearly 54,000 voters.[7]
        However most of the pro-Confederate elements no longer considered
        themselves citizens of the United States; they saw themselves as
        citizens of another country (the Confederacy) and did not vote in
        elections sponsored by the United States. Votes from the secessionist
        counties in the October 24 vote on statehood were mostly cast by
        refugees in the area around Wheeling, not in the counties themselves.[8]
        In secessionist counties where a poll was conducted it was by military
        intervention. Even in some counties that had voted against secession,
        such as Wayne and Cabell, it was necessary to send in Union soldiers.[9]

        Statehood referendum Oct. 24, 1861

        Returns from some counties were as low as 5%, e.g. Raleigh County
        32-0 in favor of statehood, Clay 76-0, Braxton 22-0, and some gave no
        returns at all. The Constitutional Convention began on November 26, 1861
        and finished its work on February 18, 1862, and the instrument was
        ratified (18,162 for and 514 against) on April 11, 1862.

        The composition of the members of all three Wheeling Conventions, the
        May (First) Convention, the June (Second) Convention, and the
        Constitutional Convention, was of an irregular nature. The members of
        the May Convention were chosen by groups of Unionists, mostly in the far
        Northwestern counties. Over one-third came from the counties around the
        northern panhandle.[10]
        The May Convention resolved to meet again in June should the Ordinance
        of Secession be ratified by public poll on May 23, 1861, which it was.
        The June Convention consisted of 104 members, 35 of which were members
        of the General Assembly in Richmond, some elected in the May 23rd vote,
        and some hold-over State Senators. Arthur Laidley, elected to the
        General Assembly from Cabell County, attended the June Convention but
        refused to take part.[11]
        The other delegates to the June Convention were “chosen even more
        irregularly-some in mass meetings, others by county committee, and still
        others were seemingly self-appointed”.[12]
        It was this June Convention which drafted the Statehood resolution. The
        Constitutional Convention met in November 1861, and consisted of 61
        members. Its composition was just as irregular. A delegate representing
        Logan County was accepted as a member of this body, though he did not
        live in Logan County, and his “credentials consisted of a petition
        signed by fifteen persons representing six families”.[13]
        The large number of Northerners at this convention caused great
        distrust over the new Constitution during Reconstruction years. In 1872,
        under the leadership of Samuel Price,
        former Lt. Governor of Virginia, the Wheeling constitution was
        discarded, and an entirely new one was written along ante-bellum
        principles. A Constitution of Our Own

        At first the Wheeling politicians controlled only a small part of
        West Virginia. However Federal forces soon drove the Confederates out of
        most of West Virginia.[14]

        On May 13, the state legislature of the reorganized government
        approved the formation of the new state. An application for admission to
        the Union was made to Congress, and on December 31, 1862 an enabling
        act was approved by President Lincoln admitting West Virginia on the
        condition that a provision for the gradual abolition of slavery be
        inserted in the Constitution.[citation needed] [15][16]
        The Convention was reconvened on February 12, 1863, and the demand was
        met. The revised constitution was adopted on March 26, 1863, and on
        April 20, 1863 President Lincoln issued a proclamation admitting the
        state at the end of sixty days (June 20, 1863). Meanwhile officers for
        the new state were chosen, and Governor Pierpont moved his capital to Alexandria from which he asserted jurisdiction over the counties of Virginia within the Federal lines.

        Legality

        The constitutionality of the new state was achieved when the Unionist
        government of Virginia approved the division. The question of the
        addition of two counties came before the Supreme Court of the United
        States in the case of Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871).[17] Berkeley and Jefferson
        counties lying on the Potomac east of the mountains, in 1863, with the
        consent of the Reorganized government of Virginia voted in favor of
        annexation to West Virginia. Many men absent in the Confederate army
        when the vote was taken refused to acknowledge the transfer upon their
        return. The Virginia General Assembly
        repealed the act of cession and in 1866 brought suit against West
        Virginia asking the court to declare the two counties a part of
        Virginia. Meanwhile Congress on March 10, 1866 passed a joint resolution
        recognizing the transfer. The Supreme Court decided in favor of West
        Virginia, and there has been no further question.”

        You sir are incorrect in your interpretation of the way that process works.

      • Siobhan Elizabeth

        You can secede if you want, assuming Colorado approves it. But that’s no guarantee that your area of Colorado will be admitted as a new state. If you don’t want to live in a state with a majority of the population disagrees with you on political issues, move to another state where they do. Sounds like you live in a mostly “blue” state with some small “red” communities, just as I, living in Pennsylvania live in a mostly “red” state (area-wise), but with two major “blue” cities. Unfortunately for me, our state government is located in a “red” area, and dominated by the politics of the “red” side of the political spectrum. I deal with it, so you can either deal with the situation in Colorado or move. Secession is a bit extreme. But go ahead. Instead of posting here, give it a try.

      • Charles Vincent

        no its a pretty even split here the problem is that the legislature has consistently ignored the voice of rural Colorado for long time.

      • Guile Williams

        Last time I checked it is majority rules. Granted rural Colorado has a miniscule population compared the the cities. Maybe they should start breeding to increase their numbers, that would eventually turn them into a big city too.

      • Charles Vincent

        Majority rule only works in a democracy, this countries and this states form of government is that of a republic and as such are designed to protect the minority from the majority.

      • Andy Kinnard

        In a republic, the actual legislative votes are still decided by a majority rule. It just means that minority views will STILL often have some representation in the legislative body; it doesn’t guarantee protection from the “tyranny of the majority”. Cope.

      • Charles Vincent

        I believe your assessment is incorrect;

        http://www DOT diffen DOT com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

      • Andy Kinnard

        I don’t see that link as lending more credibility to your argument. Rights cannot be taken away by ANY vote regardless of what proportion of the population might be in favor of that. However, what you all are complaining about is not disenfranchisement or infringement of inalienable rights. What you’re objecting to is losing on particular issues where you all represent the minority opinion in the state house where you also have representation proportionate to your population. In those circumstances there are no rights being infringed. When the legislation is not an attempt to infringe on rights (which would be illegal by default), the vote is decided by a majority of representatives. That’s the system working per design, not a dysfunction requiring remediation.

      • fester0420

        LOL I think you mean all the religious bs the GOP if constantly pushing, it dose not seem bother you when they do that even though it is against our constitution.

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        Evidently the concept of “majority rules” ONLY applies to the right when they are the majority. Hissy fits, indeed.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        chuckie upchuck is baaaak!!! still crying and pontificating even though his diapers were ( recently) changed!! OK,,here is MY take on the regressive white trash crybabies: let them f*cking move to some remote area where they can set up some flimsy government and have no BIIIIIG GOVT “interference” such as bridges and roads and little useless stuff such as that,,,then: they can wrestle chuckie upchuck to be mayor/governor/president/emperor/ vassal to all the disgusting redneck tobacco chewing Christian trash who hate the USA

      • Charles Vincent

        No real argument so you resort to name calling, and you’re calling me childish… big thumbs up there douchebag. I also don’t hate the USA I dislike bigoted assholes like you.

      • 65snake

        Name calling is all you have earned with your nonsensical posts.

      • Charles Vincent

        Says the anonymous poster whom I’ve flogged on other articles on this site before because all he could do was hurl insults instead of fielding a factual argument.

      • Siobhan Elizabeth

        You don’t know your Constitution too well, and you are obviously too lazy to use Google, or you’d know that there is a process to become a state after seceding from one: Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions reads: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; 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. So they just can’t secede and say “We are the 51st State” and it just happens. Colorado would have to approve it through their legislature and Congress would have to admit them as a new state (just as all new territories outside the original 13 colonies had to go through a process to be admitted to the Union. It might do you some good to bone up on your American history too.)

      • Charles Vincent

        Firstly they are trying through legislation exactly like the constitution allows, your own post confirms this here; “Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions
        reads: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; 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.”

        Perhaps you should bone up on whats actually happening in this state.

      • Siobhan Elizabeth

        From many of the comments here, it seems that the people wanting to secede think that if they do, they will just automatically become a new state, like magic. If they don’t think that, they should make that clear in their posts.

      • Charles Vincent

        They are trying to follow the legislative path laid out in the constitution.

      • Cristian Solano

        A new territory has to have at least 50000 residents in order to be considered a state, and they don’t even have that. They would be a territory like Puerto Rico until it gained enough residents then it could petition.

      • Charles Vincent

        There would have been more had all 11 counties voted yes.

      • CoreyT

        And 5 of the 11 barely passed the question on the ballot. You failed miserably. Yet you sit here and act like you are still going to get somewhere. What on earth is going to be your major export once the oil runs dry? Dust? It sure as hell wont be water since fraccing will ruin it all. We could give you statedom and within 2 decades you would be a welfare state just like most of the other red states that take in more tax money than they put out. It wont be agriculture (see fraccing above) and what water rights would you maintain. There’s not a real farm outside a few miles of the river going through that area of Colorado. At least West Virginia had natural resources when they became a state. However see what has happened there when the coal mines ran out and shut down. Same would happen to you except the oil wont last but 10-15 years at best.

        And your little rant about the NSA as a reason for a 51st state. Still would be part of the US and subject to Federal Laws. So it’s not like you’re escaping that.

      • Charles Vincent

        “What on earth is going to be your major export once the oil runs dry?
        Dust? It sure as hell wont be water since fraccing will ruin it all.”

        Well lets dismantle this statement. First a good portion of the exports come from rural Colorado, second there are two coal fired power stations on the western-slope that provide power for three states I believe. There is hunting and other tourism that is generated more in the rural areas. Then there is agricultural that is only in rural Colorado. Frac has been done for something like 60 years and the EPA has found no issues and on top of that you have no clue if its bad or good Since the EPA study on it will not be complete until something like 2015.

        “And your little rant about the NSA as a reason for a 51st state. Still would be part of the US and subject to Federal Laws. So it’s not like you’re escaping that.”

        MY comments on the NSA were on an Entirely different line of questions and not related to the 51st state comments. Not a very good try at spin/obfuscation there chief.

      • fester0420

        We know what they want, they are still fools.

  • Jr Huffman

    Give them to kansas good riddance

  • Chris

    We have the same issue in Washington state — the eastern side of the state is lightly populated, rural, and conservative, as are the southwest and peninsula regions, but those of us who live in the three heavily populated, mostly progressive Puget Sound-area counties simply outvote them every time. Glad it works out that way, but I can understand their frustration. There’s been talk from time to time of Eastern Washington forming its own state, but on its own it would make Arkansas look affluent.

    • Sherri G

      I’m from E WA and a democrat surrounded by conservatives. What we get frustrated with is we have no voice, no recognition by legislators as existing. An example…story about students at GONZAGA using a gun to threaten a would be robber from their apt had Good Morning America (and this happens regularly when talking about WA) putting them in SEATTLE. To the rest of the nation, we simply DONT exist on the other side of the mountains.

      • Mike Williams

        Kinda common really….I’m from a suburb of Chicago…
        We call it Illinois..

      • vetch

        Same here, Sherri. I’m in Idaho. N Idaho has no voice at all as the population centers are in S Idaho. We have a split time zone, and I’ve heard a lot of northerners saying they want to form their own state, just to have a voice.

      • Jo Clark

        See, actually you DO have a voice, and it’s determined by population. What makes people in very rural areas think you deserve a voice as big as the heavily populated metro areas? You don’t. That’s why the system is set up the way it is.

      • Charles Vincent

        What makes you think you have the right to crap all over people who have a different life style and different needs than you?

      • Guest

        What do you mean? Republicans do it all the time…

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s not the issue here. And don’t assume I am a republican.

      • Guest

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! For as many posts as you have here, you must be an unemployed Republican…

      • Charles Vincent

        Nice assumption but it is an incorrect one I am employed and I am a registered independent. Now can I help you pull your feet out of your mouth?

      • annicka

        I don’t assume you’re from Colorado either

      • Charles Vincent

        Well I am and I stated as much. I am a Colorado native and have lived here since I was born.

      • Siobhan Elizabeth

        But isn’t that what you want to do? You want to make sure gay people don’t get equal rights, you want to pollute the heck out of the environment because renewable energy and clear air and water apparently annoy you. You care nothing for the people who are gay and want to be treated equally or the people who actually like breathing clean air and drinking clean water. You, to use your words, want to crap all over those people.

      • Charles Vincent

        Firstly you assume way to much about me whom you know absolutely nothing about. But for clarification here goes.
        1) I don’t give a crap what LGBT does or doesn’t want that’s there right so long as it doesn’t infringe on mine.
        2) I used to work in the oil and gas industry until the idiots in Denver crapped all over them and they moved to North Dakota. when i did work for them there wasn’t a day that went by when the EPA wasn’t on the location making sure we were conforming to the standards set out by the EPA. and you don’t just wave a wand and go from Fossil fuel to green energy over night it does not happen.
        3) the renewable energy you are speaking of put a huge tax burden on the rural areas of the state(incidentally one reason for the desire to forma new state). the town where i grew up has a coal fired electrical plant that sup[plies power to most of the south western states and has been operating well below the guidelines of the EPA since the 1970’s.

      • Candace Marie Carlton

        Math doesn’t crap on folks. Urban areas are as entitled to their opinions as rural areas. If more folks disagree with you than agree, why should their voice be diminished?

      • Charles Vincent

        When it infringes on the others rights. and this is primarily a result of blanket legislation that might be good for the urban community but is detrimental to the rural community.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Those aren’t your rights; they are just the conditions to which you’ve become accustomed.

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually you’re incorrect again the constitution guarantees that people cannot do something that violates another individuals rights rights period.

      • Andy Kinnard

        You have not mentioned even ONE right that has been taken from you via legislative action. You HAVE mentioned several fights your side lost and which had undesired impacts to your community. That’s the way it is in a democratic republic when you side loses.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Again, losing legislative battles IS NOT EQUIVALENT to having your rights infringed or removed, period.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I hope this isn’t a duplicate, but my response persists in not showing up…

        Again, losing legislative battles IS NOT EQUIVALENT to having your rights infringed or removed, period.

      • Andy Kinnard

        It’s not “crap all over”; it’s “outvoted”, and that’s not an issue of perspective but of technique, legality, process.

      • Charles Vincent

        So populated urban center get to do what ever they want regardless of the harm it causes other not in the urban center???? wow you’re a real piece of work today.
        See the video and skip to 5:05 this is what you just espoused;
        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=JdS6fyUIklI

    • Amish

      I grew up in Eastern Washington, and moved to the west side. As much as the eastern side complains about the other side, Washington State has helped out quite a bit. Like the highway connecting Walla Walla to Tri-Cities. They have been working on making that 4 lanes for a long time, most of the funding has come from the western side of the state, not the eastern side. Just like these 2 counties in Colorado, they receive benefits from the state, but just don’t know it or appreciate it.

      And Chuckie is a troll, every time see him on here, pointless drivel. He claims independent, but that’s because he’s so far to the right he doesn’t even fit with them anymore.

  • PissPrincessKim

    Rural areas tend to be an ongoing problem. I currently live in one and the stupidity level of the people here is ASTOUNDING.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      I spend a lot of time in rural areas. I would call them stubborn, not stupid.

      • Jo Clark

        Nooo….I live in one also and there indeed is a lot of hard core ignorance.

      • Charles Vincent

        Have you maybe considered the possibility that it is you that is ignorant?

  • Mr Smith

    Hummmm, its interesting that the recreational/industrial legalization of cannabis was not mentioned as one of the issues they had trouble with.

  • langranny

    It’s just the childish “if I don’t get my way I’ll take my ball and go home” mentality…

    • Eoin Maloney

      And the kicker here, is that it’s not even their ball.

  • Jo

    It’s not always rural conservatives wanting to secede from liberal areas. Southern Arizona would like to secede from the rest of Arizona as well. Pima County is fairly liberal and they are tired of the crazy conservatives in Phoenix. There is a movement to become Baja Arizona.

    • And, I don’t know that there’s a movement for it, but if South Florida had any sense they’d break off from South Georgia.

    • Amber Dawn Johnson

      The problem with that is, as a native of both AZ and Phoenix, I can with utmost certainty say that while Conservative Republicans are still the majority, the ration is no longer as high. After decades of Sheriff Joe and several headline making (not in a good way) governors of AZ, there are MANY more people in the Phoenix area converting to the other side. The Northern part of the state is full of those rural areas which will always be conservative, I know, I have relatives there. I think the rural areas stay conservative because they dislike change and because they are rural, they can avoid changes longer than heavier populated areas. New people don’t move there, and most of us “city folk” just pass through on our way to other big cities. They only visit the big city for doctor’s appointments and to stock up on stuff that the local stores don’t carry. As a person who has lived in the Phoenix area my ENTIRE LIFE, I am tired of Tuscon, aka Pima County, acting like they are a separate state. The time to work TOGETHER is here. Then maybe we could become a blue state. We’ve got to get rid of this separatist mentality. As for the people in Colorado, are there really that many homosexuals living in the rural area that are causing these conservative people such distress? Renewable energy? They’re pissed because the rest of us want to find alternative energy to fuel our cars and power our homes? How does that effect them? I see why they’re pissed about the ammo issue, but it was voted on. If you are using your weapon for hunting, why do you need large magazines anyway?

  • Charles Vincent

    hmmm Mr. Clifton again doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground.

    • Ryan G.

      MIght I suggest you go read a conservative blog, then.

      • Charles Vincent

        Because its much more fun to flog people here with factual arguments. Make no mistake I do not cotton much to conservative idiocy either.

      • Jo Clark

        Could have fooled us.

      • Charles Vincent

        Why because I happen to think liberals like you are arrogant and pompous when it comes to this particular topic?

      • Karen Peters

        Charles, I have read your comments on numerous links and this topic has nothing to do with you thinking that liberals are arrogant and pompous. You say the same thing no matter what the topic. And you always argue that you are right. LOL

      • Charles Vincent

        Liberals are pompous and arrogant i have not seen an article or comment that doesn’t display those things here for the most part shall I point them out for you…

    • James Worcester

      Wonderfully astute observation, Mr. Vincent. You should become a writer for Breitbart.

      • Charles Vincent

        I have no desire to be a writer. I do have a desire to not have arrogant liberals tell me how I should live my life.

      • Karen Peters

        Perhaps than you should stop telling them what they should think and how they should live their lives. Works both ways you know.

      • Charles Vincent

        If liberals would mind their own business and stop butting into other peoples lives who want to be left to tend their own needs and pursuit their own objectives I wouldn’t be here but as the case has it they do not do that.

  • Perhaps Mexico would take them back. The first inhabitants of Texas were invited by the newly formed Mexican government. Realizing that the Mexican army was much smaller in number than required to protect their sovereign property, the Texans simply stole it from them. Maybe it’s time to give it back.

  • Terry

    Could you be any more condescending? As someone who lived half his life in a county and community like the ones you are addressing I take offense to the way you made your point. I agree what they are doing is stupid and is throwing a temper tantrum, but you are playing to the liberal stereotype of snooty urbanite.

  • JimmB

    How about letting those counties join Nebraska if they choose. Just don’t give them 2 more senators, as would happen with statehood. Adding them to Nebraska makes Colorado more blue, with no downside.

    • Karkadann

      Sounds fair.
      But why should Colorado even bother? We’re talking about the population of a small town compared to the millions that live in the whole state. Within the next weeks, or months at best, this incident will be mostly forgotten. There is literally no weight whatsoever behind their demandsm, no political, no economical, nothing. This will just end up as yet another funny news story. And not ignoring them would make Colorado look easy to blackmail. Not nice, but common calculation.

  • Edward Krebbs

    If you’re a conservative, you think you get a 50% handicap automatically.

  • fairness_rules

    No secession, unless they want to pay back every federal dollar the taxpayers invested in their counties, towns, etc. going back to the day of statehood. This includes roads, schools, farm subsidies, etc, etc.

  • Adam of Portland

    If the little region became its own state, it actually could significantly affect elections. Colorado is a swing state, last seen with 9 electoral votes. The new state would be entitled to 3 electoral votes, with other states losing 1 here and there to create the 3– or maybe they would get 3 votes and our electoral college’s new total would be 541 instead of 538. That solid red state could be a real tipping point in close elections. They could get what they want if they separate.

    Except they would be flat broke.

  • Larry Thedishguy Blake

    I have to ask what their opinion would be if the following scenarios happened:
    *New Orleans splitting off from the rest of Louisiana and forming its own state
    *Central Alabama splitting off from the rest of that state and forming a state of its own
    *Memphis and/or Nashville forming their own new states by splitting off from Tennessee
    *Indianapolis splitting off from Indiana and forming its own state
    *Atlanta splitting off from Georgia and forming its own state

    …You know, if the scenario were flipped and liberal-leaning areas in solid red states got sick and tired of being trampled on by right-wingers in the state government?

  • Politician

    The people of upstate New York would like to form their own state also. Everything south of Albany can even keep the name. How about North New York, or West New York. The rural areas of the state, and most of the cities have absolutely nothing in common with down state, and they greatly resent laws which affect their way of life. I am sure that the same is true in Colorado and many other states.

  • Arturo Jacobo Saiz

    Secede and take Texas with you….