Kooky California Cut-Up Plan Kiboshed By Court Ruling

After all of the ridiculous attempts of the liberal left to see who can throw the biggest political hissy fit, Californians have come up just slightly short of the mark.

In the wake of the 2016 election, the extreme left side of American politics began to mutate in direct response to the ascension of Donald Trump to the Oval Office.  Democrats and other left-leaning political pawns were simply furious that they weren’t able to elect Hillary Clinton – an extremely flawed candidate who had to subvert the DNC and rig the primaries just to get to the general election to begin with.

The writing was on the wall, but the left wasn’t going to read it.

One of the heaviest reactions to the President’s election came from the State of California, where liberal leaders even considered seceding from the United States.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Migrant Caravan Marches to Border, Invoking POTUS by Name

When that plan failed, the citizens of the Golden State considered possibly splitting their area into three separate states…but even that plan has now been sidelined.

The state Supreme Court decided Wednesday that California will remain intact geographically, at least for now, while it decides whether the voters can consider a proposal to divide the Golden State into three new states.

The three-state initiative, Proposition 9, had gathered enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Nine days after opponents filed suit, the court issued a unanimous order removing the measure from the ballot and ordering further legal arguments on whether it should be placed on another ballot in 2020 or struck down altogether.

The court said it usually allows ballot measures to go to the voters before considering constitutional challenges. But in this case, the six justices said, “significant questions regarding the proposition’s validity” and the “potential harm” of allowing a public vote before those questions are resolved “outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.”

So, even in their “resistance”, California can’t seem to do much right.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.