@rtlstien Well, I believe that when Texas joined, they had a clause saying that they could split into a maximum of 5 states if they wanted to. And I guess that clause is still there.
The problem is however the same as it was before the civil war.
Before the civil war, states joined in pairs. A slave state and a free state. The reason being that slave states would not accept a new free state, and free states would not accept a new slave state. But if one of each joined at the same time, it was acceptable for both.
And now, Republican states won't accept a new Democratic state, and Democratic states won't accept a new Republican state.
So I think now, if Texas and California both want to split up at the same time, that might actually be possible.
When it comes to DC, I fully agree with you. DC should never become a state.
However, I think they should have ONE senator. That would make an odd number of senators, and make sure that you won't get a deadlock in the senate.
0
@rtlstien Well, I believe that when Texas joined, they had a clause saying that they could split into a maximum of 5 states if they wanted to. And I guess that clause is still there.
The problem is however the same as it was before the civil war.
Before the civil war, states joined in pairs. A slave state and a free state. The reason being that slave states would not accept a new free state, and free states would not accept a new slave state. But if one of each joined at the same time, it was acceptable for both.
And now, Republican states won't accept a new Democratic state, and Democratic states won't accept a new Republican state.
So I think now, if Texas and California both want to split up at the same time, that might actually be possible.
When it comes to DC, I fully agree with you. DC should never become a state.
However, I think they should have ONE senator. That would make an odd number of senators, and make sure that you won't get a deadlock in the senate.