Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

An Admirer from the East

Will "Greater Idaho" help BSU to the PAC

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I love everything about Idaho except for some of the dumb+++++ery legislation by the state government. Trying not to get too political on the sports forum but this is a sore subject for me.

It's the religious farm boys in the state legislature. But yeah, maybe that's too political.

Back on topic, this won't help Boise State into the PAC, for two reasons. First, the haves don't want to divide their revenue any further without guarantees that it will increase each member's share.

And second, Boise's academics aren't on par yet. Maybe they will be in another 15, 20 years, but not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CV147 said:

No county would vote to join Utah. And only sadist Utahans would vote to expand that state.

Just look at all the Utahans coming to Malad to buy their lottery tickets Wendover to get their freak on. Do they want a longer road trip or what?

FIFY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ph90702 said:

It’s not unconstitutional.  It’s only unconstitutional if the state is entirely within another state.

My point was that neither Oregon or California will ever allow these sections to break out. Loss of tax base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OLDMAN said:

My point was that neither Oregon or California will ever allow these sections to break out. Loss of tax base. 

@SleepingGiantFan, @NVGiant, @I am Ram  ....

LET.

MY.

PEOPLE.

GO!!!

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"On the creation of new states, the Constitution is pretty clear. Article IV, Section 3, reads that “no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State … without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

It appears that someone forgot to tell West Virginia about this. In 1863, the Mountain State carved itself out of the northwestern corner of the Commonwealth of Virginia, raising the question: Is West Virginia unconstitutional?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2020 at 6:34 AM, OLDMAN said:

Will never happen because of this part in the US Constitution:

 

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State 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.

Jeez what a killjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Douglaspoke said:

"On the creation of new states, the Constitution is pretty clear. Article IV, Section 3, reads that “no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State … without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

It appears that someone forgot to tell West Virginia about this. In 1863, the Mountain State carved itself out of the northwestern corner of the Commonwealth of Virginia, raising the question: Is West Virginia unconstitutional?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia

 

Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 39 (1871), is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that where a governor has discretion in the conduct of the election, the legislature is bound by his action and cannot undo the results based on fraud. The Court implicitly affirmed that the breakaway Virginia counties had received the necessary consent of both the State of Virginia and the United States Congress to become a separate state, and explicitly held that the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson were part of the new state of West Virginia.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Douglaspoke said:

"On the creation of new states, the Constitution is pretty clear. Article IV, Section 3, reads that “no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State … without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

It appears that someone forgot to tell West Virginia about this. In 1863, the Mountain State carved itself out of the northwestern corner of the Commonwealth of Virginia, raising the question: Is West Virginia unconstitutional?"

Someone needs to break the news to this guy that Idaho is NOT a "new" State. 

However those who doubt this will ever occur are likely correct as in the end this has to be approved by the legislatures of Idaho, Oregon and California.  As well as the U.S. Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Fowl said:

It will never happen because CA would lose control of a couple of their major water sources.  Socal depends on water from Lake Shasta and the Feather River watershed.

We will give you a great deal on water. We have a lot.

lamb-with-human-face-150331-670.jpg?itok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, OLDMAN said:

My point was that neither Oregon or California will ever allow these sections to break out. Loss of tax base. 

If that was your point why did you post a clause of an article of the constitution and say “it won’t happen because of this”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

If that was your point why did you post a clause of an article of the constitution and say “it won’t happen because of this”?

Because 'this' explained that all the legislatures and Congress needed to approve.  I thought it was pretty clear myself.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RSF said:

Because 'this' explained that all the legislatures and Congress needed to approve.  I thought it was pretty clear myself.

I took that as him mistaking the first part regarding new states not being able to be formed out of existing states as thinking it applied to the proposed scenario. I guess he felt going for a “mic drop” was better then adding a sentence clarifying his point, I dunno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, renoskier said:

Aren't rural areas in most states net tax losers?

Yep..........Nevada should convince Humboldt, Lander, Eureka, Elko, White Pine counties to join Greater Idaho 

THose counties just leech off Clark & Washoe - Only reason I didn't include Mineral, Esmeralda & Nye Counties is to keep a contiguous link between Washoe & Clark Counties as a state 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...