The Coup Failed #YesYourPresident

"Only 55 percent say they have a lot or some trust in Obama to tell the public accurate information about foreign intelligence and what's going on overseas. Fifty-one percent say the same of Trump."

"Thirty-two percent said Russia influenced the election's results, while 44 percent said they didn't, and 24 percent said they were unsure or had no opinion."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...OGR?li=BBnbcA1

Snipe Hunting 101!

Great, and take their 55 Electoral votes with them. Originally Posted by bambino

actually, the 55 votes would be distributed to other states if California leaves.

actually, the 55 votes would be distributed to other states if California leaves. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Why?

The Electors are based on districts and senators. They will not be "distributed to other states" .... They will just disappear.

And Pendleton. Except unlike Guantanamo it won't be a lease. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Camp Pendleton. been there. several times. always a blast to get sent up to Pendleton for weapons qualifications. and you usually get to watch live fire tank maneuvers too. yeehaw!!

semper fi jarheads!

We should keep all of California. We just need to deport all of the fucking libs. It's beautiful country but run by retards. Originally Posted by Budman

exactly. we took it, why give it up fer nada? just dump the libs and illegals and it will be a new west coast just waiting to be settled bahahaaaa

actually, the 55 votes would be distributed to other states if California leaves. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Why?

The Electors are based on districts and senators. They will not be "distributed to other states" .... They will just disappear. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I made an error in my post. I meant 53, not 55.

there is legislation that fixed congressional districts at 435 seats.

the senate would be reduced to 98 seats.

The loss of two California senators would increase the IQ and effectiveness of Congress.

We should keep all of California. We just need to deport all of the fucking libs. Originally Posted by Budman

And depot the wetbacks and gang bangers while we're at it ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

just dump the libs and illegals and it will be a new west coast just waiting to be settled bahahaaaa Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

To the Black Sea, I surmise....

there is legislation that fixed congressional districts at 435 seats.
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Based on the number of districts in California, when those are eliminated then the total number is reduced.

U.S. Constitution Art. I, Section 2:
"...The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative;..."

This is a decent explanation of how and why it would be adjusted to meet the change from California leaving the Union .... it also address the Electoral College formula as well ....

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/docum...11July1995.pdf

California has 53 U.S. Representatives ...

The incentive for reducing the number of seats is seen here:

http://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/9c14ec...3daa1640e4.pdf

Roughly $1.5 million annually per seat .... in budget savings.

The two Senate seats would reduce it annually about $7-8 million.

So it would reduce costs annually to about $90 million.

Are you saying that each congressional district is capped at 30,000 population? What's the population of your district?

Based on the number of districts in California, when those are eliminated then the total number is reduced.

U.S. Constitution Art. I, Section 2:
"...The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative;..."

This is a decent explanation of how and why it would be adjusted to meet the change from California leaving the Union .... it also address the Electoral College formula as well ....

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/docum...11July1995.pdf

California has 53 U.S. Representatives ...

The incentive for reducing the number of seats is seen here:

http://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/9c14ec...3daa1640e4.pdf

Roughly $1.5 million annually per seat .... in budget savings.

The two Senate seats would reduce it annually about $7-8 million.

So it would reduce costs annually to about $90 million. Originally Posted by LexusLover

it would require an act of congressto make that change.

don't think that will happen, 53 seats is too juicy to pass up. they think power over common sense.

Are you saying that each congressional district is capped at 30,000 population? What's the population of your district? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No. I didn't say that.

it would require an act of congressto make that change.

don't think that will happen, 53 seats is too juicy to pass up. they think power over common sense. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

And you don't "think that will happen" based on what legal argument?

It is adjusted every 10 years and what happens every 10 years.

Secondly, if the seats are based on "population" in the constitution (which they are), being "too juicy" doesn't satisfy the standard set by the U.S. Constitution.

Go back and see in the legislative history how many times it has been changed as the population has grown.

Haven't we had too much "too juicy" decisions lately?

And you don't "think that will happen" based on what legal argument?

It is adjusted every 10 years and what happens every 10 years.

Secondly, if the seats are based on "population" in the constitution (which they are), being "too juicy" doesn't satisfy the standard set by the U.S. Constitution.

Go back and see in the legislative history how many times it has been changed as the population has grown.

Haven't we had too much "too juicy" decisions lately? Originally Posted by LexusLover

legislation has changed a bunch of times until 1911 which was the last year of an increase. there was two attempts to add more seats in 1929 & in 2000's (adding 2 more seats).

of course, the next census Will determine who will get those 53 seats.

And you don't "think that will happen" based on what legal argument

this is not about a legal argument, but about politics.

I think the House of Representatives should be increased to 1500 members. The cost would be offset by more intimate connections with their constituents and less influence of special interests. There would be greater turnover, and much less concentration of power. The people would have a much clearer voice, which would limit the passage of stupid bills. More people would be acquainted with their representatives.

I know you're going to flame away, but understand, the Establishment will never let this happen, and so far, I'm the only one with this idea, and Mike Pompeo doesn't like talking to me.

I think the House of Representatives should be increased to 1500 members. The cost would be offset by more intimate connections with their constituents and less influence of special interests. There would be greater turnover, and much less concentration of power. The people would have a much clearer voice, which would limit the passage of stupid bills. More people would be acquainted with their representatives.

I know you're going to flame away, but understand, the Establishment will never let this happen, and so far, I'm the only one with this idea, and Mike Pompeo doesn't like talking to me. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

congressional seats need to be increased to at least 1305 or 2175.