More counties want to secede from Colorado

[nwarounder]

I think he is trying to play the same game as the eight counties up north are, except few care if they actually do leave, in fact many would be happy if they would.

It's like the rich kid threatening to take his toys home and then is so sad when nobody begs them to stay and play. The rest of the state does not need their toys anymore to play ball.

And you didn't see Hickenlooper running to a mic to beg them to stay, did you?

[JD Barleycorn]

Well Nightie, this really isn't the start of the thread. This is a sequel to another thread that is getting dated. So I started a new one. So now you can go back to the original and see some of the ignorant posts that came before. Now that you're up to speed I have an idea, what happens if more people in more counties start standing up and walking away. How will this government work if only one or two counties remain that you would consider Colorado? They fail and the rest of the counties become Colorado. A government unresponsive to the people must fall or be replaced.

You must have missed my post from earlier today (or was it last night?), the state constitution gives the citizens the right to change or dissolve their government. They may not have thought about this but there it is.

[Yssup Rider]

How DARE that sumbitch NOT pay attention to one of your threads?

LMAO!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

And you didn't see Hickenlooper running to a mic to beg them to stay, did you?

He doesn't need to, since everyone recognizes this for what it is -- just a bunch of silly talk by a few grandstanders.

He probably figures it's best to let them continue to make laughingstocks of themselves. By doing so, they will simply diminish their credibility when they try to take their grievances to the General Assembly, since the state's media will drown them out by ridiculing all the secession talk nonsense.

However, those rural counties have very little in the way of bargaining power in any event.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Well Nightie, this really isn't the start of the thread. This is a sequel to another thread that is getting dated. So I started a new one. So now you can go back to the original and see some of the ignorant posts that came before. Now that you're up to speed I have an idea, what happens if more people in more counties start standing up and walking away. How will this government work if only one or two counties remain that you would consider Colorado? They fail and the rest of the counties become Colorado. A government unresponsive to the people must fall or be replaced.

You must have missed my post from earlier today (or was it last night?), the state constitution gives the citizens the right to change or dissolve their government. They may not have thought about this but there it is.

OK, here's a very simple idea for you, Barleycorn. Why don't you link the thread to which you alluded and point out the "ignorant" posts?

And all that stuff about the state's constitution addresses the right of the citizens of the whole state to effect change or dissolution of some kind. Contrary to what you insinuated earlier, the Colorado General Assembly has to approve actions involving such radical measures as the attempted secession of counties. So with respect to this multi-county secession crap, your whole post was a non sequitur. Got it?

And concerning this ridiculous question:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Now that you're up to speed I have an idea, what happens if more people in more counties start standing up and walking away.

Say what?!?

They can't just "stand up and walk away."

What is it about this issue that you're having so much trouble understanding?

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn View Post
If they can't affect [sic] a political break, then they could always do a de facto separation. The counties in question set up their own shadow government, break all legal ties with Denver, and dissolve all contractual agreements.

The problem with that is the contractual agreements that cover that area cover the water they need. Without it they get no water. What are they going to do then.

Now if all you are doing is talking about this in a conceptual way, then o.k. but on a realistic level, never going to happen due to the issues I have pointed out.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Too many people here think this is an episode of Family Guy. Here it is; Article two, section 2 of the Colorado consitutition:

Text of 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.

and here is Article two, section 30 (if you secede then you are annexing other counties to create a new entity.

Text of Section 30:
Right to Vote or Petition on Annexation ­Enclaves
(1) No unincorporated area may be annexed to a municipality unless one of the following conditions first has been met:
(a) The question of annexation has been submitted to the vote of the landowners and the registered electors in the area proposed to be annexed, and the majority of such persons voting on the question have voted for the annexation; or(b) The annexing municipality has received a petition for the annexation of such area signed by persons comprising more than fifty percent of the landowners in the area and owning more than fifty percent of the area, excluding public streets, and alleys and any land owned by the annexing municipality; or(c) The area is entirely surrounded by or is solely owned by the annexing municipality.(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to annexations to the city and county of Denver, to the extent that such annexations are governed by other provisions of the constitution.
(3) The general assembly may provide by law for procedures necessary to implement this section. This section shall take effect upon completion of the canvass of votes taken thereon.

I see how annexation happens in this passage, but not how separation happens. It reminds me of many of the sessions I have with staffers--they just don't take a breath and stop to see if the bill is logically consistent and complete. Frustrating as a non-politician who can point out inconsistencies but get the "We're the experts, we know what we're doing", when they obviously don't. Either that or they know they are doing incomplete staff work.

Originally Posted by BigLouie

Now back to the water issue. The counties that want to break away need a LOT of water and if they break away they WILL NOT have rights to the water they need as those rights belong to the state of Colorado, not them. They have to form new agreements which take time and money both of which they will not have if they form a new state. For this reason and this reason alone the the whole movement will fall apart.

I'm not sure I agree. Much of it depends where the water is coming from and how things are worded. Suppose Old State sells water rights from the ABC river. Then part of the state is successful in splitting off to form New State. Even though Old State signed the original agreement, if the ABC river is completely in New State (or at least the diversion point is, and the river is nowhere to be found in the remaining parts of Old State, then what? Or the reverse. In NM I believe it was the city or county that purchased water rights from CO, not the state of NM. So if NM split, I assume whichever state had Bernalillo County in it would be the one getting the water. But I may be incorrect.

Whether water is a "deviation" or the crux of the issue depends a lot which state you are talking about. In the Mountain Time Zone it is truly critical. In other states it may not be.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I see how annexation happens in this passage, but not how separation happens.

It doesn't.

That's why I stated earlier that Barleycorn's argument was completely nonsensical, after he wrote that I must have "missed" his post containing excerpts from the State of Colorado constitution.

I didn't. The fact is that his post (#40) was simply a non sequitur having nothing at all to do with whether regions or counties have the legal right to secede.

[JD Barleycorn]

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=761900&highlight=
Jefferson used a word. It is "self evident" which posts are ignorant. Enjoy reading them all.

[Yssup Rider]

that looks like two words, BSwine.

you want peoples to think you smart? Then write it "self-evident."

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I'm not sure I agree. Much of it depends where the water is coming from and how things are worded. Suppose Old State sells water rights from the ABC river. Then part of the state is successful in splitting off to form New State. Even though Old State signed the original agreement, if the ABC river is completely in New State (or at least the diversion point is, and the river is nowhere to be found in the remaining parts of Old State, then what? Or the reverse. In NM I believe it was the city or county that purchased water rights from CO, not the state of NM. So if NM split, I assume whichever state had Bernalillo County in it would be the one getting the water. But I may be incorrect.

Whether water is a "deviation" or the crux of the issue depends a lot which state you are talking about. In the Mountain Time Zone it is truly critical. In other states it may not be.

I researched this. The area that wants to break away does not have enough water to meet their needs. They have to "rent" water from Denver and other cities to cover their needs. If they break away or attempt to I fully expect the state to tell them "what do you plan on doing for water".

[JD Barleycorn]

If you researched it then you must have citation.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=761900&highli ght=
Jefferson used a word. It is "self evident" which posts are ignorant. Enjoy reading them all.

Did you even bother to take another look at that thread? Had you done so, you would have seen that all the ignorance was manifested in the opening post -- by you! The rest of the posters merely ridiculed your stupidity, and two posts (nos. 11 and 17) were obviously spot on.

Although I did not reply in that thread, I did respond in yet another thread when you pressed for my opinion on whether the secession story is "real." To wit:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=61

Do you ever attempt to actually learn anything from previous discussions? (Or from any source, for that matter.) Had you merely mentioned it once as a joke, that would be one thing. But you keep bringing it up in thread after thread, so I don't believe for a minute that you have any understanding of the ridiculousness of this secession B.S.

I'm sure you've heard the old adage, "Thank God for Mississippi!" It's a popular refrain for those whose states perennially rank near the bottom in categories such as median income, health and obesity metrics, and scholastic achievement. Their hope is that Mississippi will eliminate their risk of a last-place ranking.

Barleycorn, I suggest that you mutter the following statement to yourself the next time you start a ridiculously stupid thread, especially if it's merely an encore of another one you posted previously:

"Thank God for Whirlaway!"

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

Yes but that was 150-200 YEARS AGO. Things are a bit more complicated now.

Actually, Northern Colorado CAN secede from Colorado, but it would have to get the consent of the legislature of Colorado and the U.S. Congress. See Article IV, Section 3, of the US Constitution.

Good luck with that. Somehow I just don't see the Colorado legislature permitting the oil and gas rich sections of Northern Colorado to leave and to take all that tax money with them.

[JD Barleycorn]

Bla-bla-bla. Call me when you have something to say.