More counties want to secede from Colorado

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by RochBob

Unfortunately, as Old-T has already pointed out. There are multiple instances across the Country of where Urban areas with a high consentration of Population have usurped the needs, wants and resources of the rest of the State. I happen to live in what they call Upstate NY. This is pretty much defined as anything North or West of New York City. Now given that this is about 95% of the land mass of the State you would think what we wanted would count for something. But it doesn't. That's because the population of NYC out numbers the rest of the entire state.

Uh, isn't that called the Majority? Land mass doesn't vote and when NYC has more people than the rest of the state combined then they get to set a lot of the rules. You are asking for tyranny of the minority doofus. If upstate breaks away, NYC should wall it off and they could afford to do it. God save the country bumpkins and yokels for they shall rule the world (in their own tiny minds).

Originally Posted by RochBob

There are many people who think that Long Island (where NYC is located for those of you that failed Geography (when you tell people that don't live in NYS that you're from New York State they seem to think we all live in NYC)) should be split off from the rest of the State and become it's own separate entity.

Generally the heart of NYC is considered to be Manhattan which is mostly on the island of Manhattan and several other smaller islands for "those of you that failed Geography". The Bronx is on the mainland while Brooklyn and Queens are on Long Island with the fifth borough being Staten Island which (for the geographically challenged again) isn't on LI either. So while about half of the city population is on LI, the heart and three of five borough's aren't on LI either.

And actually for the factually challenged NYC is just under 9 Million while New York state is almost 20 million making NYC less than 50% of the state's population, but the NYC metropolitan area has almost 20 Million people, though many are not in New York State at all.

[JD Barleycorn]

Okay, I'll admit it Aux...you're a bigot. Yes, calling names is a way to stop the discussion but in this case it is descriptive (country bumpkins and yokels?) instead of a pejorative.

What you forgot to mention, and this is very important, is that the Constitution portects the right of the minority while the majority rules. This is not happening anymore. You forget that the minority is not about race or sex it is about, as the founders used to say, factions. Go and read the first part of the Declaration of Independence;

"...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..."

[RochBob]

austxjr,
I am well aware that NYC proper is made up of 5 boroughs and I can even name them: Brooklyn, Bronx, Staten Island, Manhattan & Queens. I am also aware that NYC unofficially (like most major cities in the US) is also comprised of the many suburban to semi-rural areas for many miles around it. I am also aware that a great many people spend many hours a day commuting to their job in NYC from these areas. The fact that you seem to be so knowledgeable about the NYC area makes me think that you are either one of the many NYS residents that have followed their job when it left the State to more Business friendly Texas or your one of those Rich/Wealthy folks that have relocated from NYC to Texas or Florida to avoid paying NYS Taxes.

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Old T did you notice that we are not talking about secession from the country in Colorado either. We are talking about one state becoming two which has happened successfully more than once. There has long been talk of that in California and Texas. Maybe you didn't read the link (obviously most of you didn't) but the mineral resources are in the north so much of the wealth is in the north. Like I said, a defacto secession could always be possible.

The last time this happened was close to 175 years ago. Personally I think cooler heads will prevail. I expect people to get "cold feet" when it comes time to actually vote on this. One of the biggest issues is water. Colorado has agreements in place with other states on the use of water flowing from state to state. If this new state were to come into being they would have no such agreements and no water rights agreed upon. They would have to start from zero and negotiate on their own. This is not something to be taken lightly and will move people to be very cautious.

[Old-T]

Philosophically we should redraw the state boundaries.

Much of the intent of the original boundaries was a sense that each state would have some common factors so their representatives would actually represent the needs, principles, etc., of those people. That is no longer true in many instances (e.g. Texas, California, New York, Florida).

The size of a state was influenced by--among other things--the mode of travel and how long it would take to get to the county seat, and how long to the capitol, from anywhere in the state. That was assumed to be an important factor for people to have relatively easy access to government. When the internal combustion engine came along that issue became almost moot and states in the west grew in size (for other reasons too).

But I doubt we will ever do this for three reasons:
--Inertia. "We've never done it so we can't do it"
--Inability of the political parties to play nice together at all. It would require compromise, and neither the RWWs nor the LWWs comprehend that word.
--As has been pointed out, existing agreements among states. By the way, the water issue in Colorado alone would be messy since Denver agreed to sell western slope CO water to New Mexico, etc.

PS: For those giving geography lessons on NYC, Brooklyn is actually Kings County, and Staten Island is actually Richmond. And if you were to make a division based upon "common traits" it would probably draw a line around Newburg, NY. Anything south of I-84 and east of I-87 would form one state (including Long Island), and the rest would be the other. But the major reason this won't happen is there would be endless fights over which one is called "New York" and which one will need a new name.

[nwarounder]

Despite all the philosophical discussions, imo opinion it has nothing to do with it, it is money and politics. The northern part of the state is big oil and mining territory, including uranium, and the rest of CO has always felt they had to bow down to them due to all the money they raked into the state. As you can imagine the lower liberals and tree huggers are highly opposed to what is going on in the north. The southern, really it's larger than that, but generally speaking no longer needs the tax money from the north and now are giving them the big "Fuck You!" through legislation. Of all the secessions in the recent past, this one has the best chance of success for the north is butthurt and wants to leave, and the rest says good riddance, now.

I agree with BL though, water will probably be the reason the north backs down in the end.

[Old-T]

You grossly oversimplify the situation in Colorado.

There are a whole lot more issues than those you mention. And a whole lot more fracture lines.

Much of the south associates with northern New Mexico more than they do with Denver, and there are a lot of conservative morals there associated with the Spanish (not Mexican) roots of the area. Lots of small farming and ranching, and places where $20K/yr incomes are the norm.

Colorado Springs, though 60 miles from Denver, is exceedingly Thumper territory. If the majority there had their way you would see a Christian version of Taliban Law. Boulder, 60 miles the other side of Denver, is very liberal.

Meanwhile the Durango CO/Farmington NM area is a very big mining region though you confuse it with the "lower liberals".

So, as much as you want to make it a "Us Conservatives up North" vs "Them Stinkin' Liberals down South", it isn't.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Old-T

You grossly oversimplify the situation in Colorado.

There are a whole lot more issues than those you mention. And a whole lot more fracture lines.

Much of the south associates with northern New Mexico more than they do with Denver, and there are a lot of conservative morals there associated with the Spanish (not Mexican) roots of the area. Lots of small farming and ranching, and places where $20K/yr incomes are the norm.

Colorado Springs, though 60 miles from Denver, is exceedingly Thumper territory. If the majority there had their way you would see a Christian version of Taliban Law. Boulder, 60 miles the other side of Denver, is very liberal.

Meanwhile the Durango CO/Farmington NM area is a very big mining region though you confuse it with the "lower liberals".

So, as much as you want to make it a "Us Conservatives up North" vs "Them Stinkin' Liberals down South", it isn't.

Of course there are red counties in the state other than the ones wanting to secede. I never intended to try and explain ever region, thus I oversimplified it, for there is no reason, the other red counties are not trying to secede to New Mexico or from CO. What I am saying is there is an obvious shift in liberal backing within the state, other than the northern counties, they have been red in most every presidential election in the past couple of decades. The rest, and of course not all, have made a very distinct turn to the blue, not only in the people they are electing, but the laws the citizens are passing themselves that are generally considered liberal type laws. In the last 10 presidential elections, the state has voted blue only 3 times, 2 of those were in the last two elections and because of the liberals in the southern parts (meaning, all the other counties except the ones wanting to secede). And I do think it is as simple as the north is butthurt over the passing of some tighter legislation, especially renewable energy by the libs that affects their wallets, and the rest of the state as a whole and it's recent leaning to the liberal side won't put up much of a fight, if not welcome it.

And just for the record, I'm not very found of those counties up there, I love the tree huggers in Denver, one of, if not the greatest city in America.

[Yssup Rider]

I think we should redraw state lines every 10 years... Unless it offends Reoublicans. Then we should redraw the lines every five.

LMAO!!!!

[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'va biggen]

Hope several will split up till we have 57 then Obie will be a psychic

[BigLouie]

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.

That's all well and good EXCEPT it makes NO mention of forming a new state from counties. It talks about new forms of government for the ENTIRE state and ANNEXATION within the existing state but NOWHERE does it mention breaking away.

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.

[JD Barleycorn]

Is it possible to think about what you just wrote? A constitution for the state government to operate under and you think there would be something in it about leaving? How about a marriage license with an easy escape clause? If you read, and think, section two allows for a reorganization of the government (dissolution) and annexation (a gathering of counties to forn a new government). It all seems to be there even if it was not forseen that citizens would not want to leave.

The United States did not have permission to secede if you will. They had to take it after trying for about two decades other means.

Well the water issue is a deviation from the thread (own that) but why do you think the agreements in place are so good. Where did the water come from and who is serving it out? Since none of us live there why so you assume that Denver is doing right by the entire state? California is fucking thousands of farmers over for a tiny little fish why wouldn't Colorado do the same? We do know that Denver is fucking over many citizens with their new gun laws so why not water or mineral rights?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Well the water issue is a deviation from the thread (own that) but why do you think the agreements in place are so good. Where did the water come from and who is serving it out? Since none of us live there why so you assume that Denver is doing right by the entire state? California is fucking thousands of farmers over for a tiny little fish why wouldn't Colorado do the same? We do know that Denver is fucking over many citizens with their new gun laws so why not water or mineral rights?

How fucking naive are you, BSwine?

You think this is the first time that the law of the land -- written to protect the many (too often by knee jerk dipshits like you idolize) -- has fucked over the few?

Please suggest a model of representative government where everybody gets what they want?

A little guppy shut down San Antonio about 20 years ago. Of course you probably aren't aware of that. I can't take my dog on a walk because of a fucking beetle.

If Texas had GOOD gun laws, I could go out there and shoot the fucking beetles! But NOOOO!

I've said it before and i'll say it again, Drama Queen, you are a fucking RUBE!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Some of the shallow thinkers here will not understand, so let me try to explain (like you would to a child) how this works. The first thing to bear in mind is that secession is such an important action that to even consider it has to be noted.

Way to go, Professor Barleycorn! Nothing like starting out a thread with a pre-emptive, heaping helping of condescension aimed at a group of unnamed forum participants. Just as a point of curiosity, who do you consider to be the forum's dimmest bulbs? (Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that your list differs slightly from almost everyone else's.)

In the first place, if you intended to explain "how this works" (whether in the style with which you would address a child, or not), you would have noted that the first thing to "bear in mind" is that all this secession talk is fatuous nonsense from a few attention-seeking grandstanders. I realize you've expressed your fantasies concerning this in a number of threads now, but surely you must understand that it doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming reality. Don't you?

To start with, Colorado's Denver-centric General Assembly would have to approve the counties' secession. Then the U.S. Congress would also have to grant its approval. Good luck with that!

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

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.

Yeah, right! What do you think would happen if residents of those counties tried to stop paying Colorado state income tax, or if individuals and entities tried to stop paying taxes on oil and gas production?

Collections of rural counties all over the country feel that they get the shaft from their state capitals. In many cases they raise valid concerns, but it's been that way throughout our nation's history.

Another obvious point is that collections of rural counties, should they ever become new states, would in most instances send two more Republican Senators to Washington. Again, good luck with that!

Barleycorn, if you want to fantasize about something, may I suggest the PowerBall lottery mega-jackpot?

Your odds would be better.