vis-à-vis
Member
I need a link to the original article, please. Good stuff!
turning out the liberal ruling party and electing a conservative government that has systematically dismantled the registry.
Actually, if you subtract Chicago, Rockford, and East St. Louis, the rest of Illinois is great. (Speaking as a former Rockford resident). Illinois gives us Springfield Armory, Rock River Arms and Winchester Ammunition.
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.
You can do it, you just have to get permission. They don't say exactly what "consent" equates to, as far as how many votes or anything. So, you get the permission of Congress, and of the Ill legislature, and you're good to go. You just have to spin it just right, to keep them from seeing the fact that you're killing thier majority in Congress, and making it harder to get it back.Article IV, Section 3. 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.
Nah...actually, if you just carve off Chicago, the rest of the state is pretty sensible.Maybe dividing Illinois into two states (North Ill. and South Ill.) would be a good thing...
Since Chicago seems to control the politics, you'd have to find some way to spin it to make it look like it's a good thing for them. Any ideas?
You only quoted a small part of the Section, and by doing so you reversed the meaning. The entire Section reads as follows:owen said:Gah, you are going to make me go read it. I'm pretty sure there is a clause which states that new states can not be formed out of established states.
Article 4 Section 3 ...No new state may be erected within the jurisdiction of any other State...
First, new states may be formed within existing states, but it requires state and Congressional approval. Second, handing a chunk of one state (such as East St. Louis, IL, off to another state (such as MO) does not create a new state, it merely transfers part of one existing state to another existing state. I submit that there might be some legitimate debate as to whether or not such an action is addressed by this particular section of the Constitution.Article 4 said:Section 3
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.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice
any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
I dont begin to claim I have any idea how, but to have given that much control and money to one city in a whole state is wrong. Is there anyway to see how much of a drain a city is.
Now all we have to do is get a few counties in NY to do the same. Throw off the yoke of Bloomberg et al.