kengs333

The "case law" is irrelevant if it is suspect, and "case law" can always be challenged; if that wasn't the case, then slavery would still legally exist as it once did. But of course if a state desires to secede it will have a legal basis for doing so, but then will have somehow convince the courts of the entity that it is seceding from for legal sanction to do so. So how can US courts really have legitimate jurisdiction over something like this? Moreover, the US is going around the world setting up "democratic" states while denying the right of self-determination to its own states. Interestingly I was watching something earlier about a place called Liberty, Washington...

If the Cons get beaten on Oct. 14, the party will start to break apart and it will all start up again.

This is something that several Cons are doing, most notably Diane Finley who seems to be on her way out anyway...

LOL If there are two, there must be more...

Harper's nightmare is beginning; last week of the campaign, a campaign that has not gone smoothly, and he's just managing to hold on... and with the usual last minute rush to join the Liberals this should be VERY VERY interesting...

The "movement" in Alberta moved into the Reform Party, hence to the Canadian Alliance, and finally is a part of the Conservative Party of Canada. It's still there.

Second Vermont Republic Republic of New Hampshire aslo, google "Montana secession" and add Alaska and Hawaii to the list...

I'd have to study that case before I'm willing to draw a firm opinion on its merits, but from a general standpoint it would seem to me that the ruling would have to have been the one that had to be made not from a strictly objective legal basis, rather because there would perhaps been some other motivating factors.

I'm thinking that if a state has a population that democratically has chosen to remove itself from the Union, that forcing it to stay in the Union would be what is illegal. By its very definition, a political Union is not something that is indivisible.

What difference does it make that they are still part of the United States? In some states there are strong undercurrents of discontent, and it could happen that the majority of people in a given state will feel themselves better served as an independent entity. One option would be to join Canada if independence is not viable, givne that Canada has a more stable political and economic system.

In all honesty, one would think that this kind of vandalism to cars would be something done by anti-Harper people trying to make it look like something committed by pro-Harper people. More likely, though, it's probably just a group of punk kids with no real agenda who probably just randomly picked the Liberals for some reason... I hope there aren't copycats out there in my riding who plan to go after Green Party supporters' signs; I don't think my neighbour's kids would appreciate one of their cars receiving that kind of attention.

There are several states, primarily in the New England region, that have strong seperatist movements, and I'm thinking that these states would be better served if they joined Canada rather than trying to go it alone. The most likely candidates: 1) Vermont 2) New Hampshire 3) Maine 4) Washington and/or Oregon 5) Michigan 6) Montana

Russia needs to restore its Monarchy. Interestingly enough, one of the possibles resides here in Canada, although she apparently is not at all interested in assuming the role. Until then, Garry Kasparov should be President.

Yes, you are right: Russia is another example. It is becoming a totalitarian regime. Not one word in my post about the USA. Easy, because it's the best system. We have a leader that can draw on centuries of tradition, has a legal and political system that has evolved over 800 years. I'd say that's way better than a political system that allows former B movie actors and peanut farms to become head-of-state. Then move to the US, because we don't need traitors in this country. If you don't accept Canada's political system and its traditions for what it is, then you don't love Canada and have no right to reside here.

If you look at how the monarchy works, though, it's very much a family institution. Also, like it or not, our monarchy is the product of centuries of development and refinement, and it has now become something much more than simply power invested in one person. The Queen has a number of advisors aside from members of her family with whom she consults with on a regular basis, and she in turn is in constant contact with the British Prime Minister, from whom she is kept up to date in regards to the working of Parlaiment, and who she in turn advises when need be. So in reality, there is a sophisticated network that basically keeps everything in line and on a relatively moderate footing. We should count ourselves fortunate for having inherited such a stable form of government, and why we would want to replace it with something like a republic is beyond me.

Pakistan is an excellent example of what becomes of republics.

Genetic testing done on First Nations peoples indicate that the Ojibway are of European origin, unlike other native groups that came to this continent by way of Asia. In all likelihood, the ancestors of the Ojibway would have been the first occupants of what in now southern Ontario, which basically means that Europeans have ancestral rights to this region.

You can easily counter an argument without the use of "tinfoil" and "toaster". That kind of talk may work amongst your buddies whilst swilling US industrial brew around the combine at harvest time, but here it doesn't. Speaking of hypocracy... whining to the mods is pretty sad. Well, two can play...

You aren't? At least he doesn't whine about it to the mods...

Same goes to you in respect to Ireland. I'll even pay for the ticket, brew the canola-based biodeisel jet fuel, single-handedly fuel the plane and load all the baggage, and fly it myself if I have to...

It's not him, it's the herbicides and pesticides talking. Being exposed to those things year after year are sure to kill a few brain cells. Wait until he starts huffing that biodiesel... things are bound to get more interesting for sure!

Lawyer Author I read her book; it's quite good, and very inspirational.

When. Certainly not on national television. That's because the 35-40% of people who habitually vote Con don't care. The jobs gained were not manufacturing jobs. He had to admit this, but really didn't seem to care. Then he got beat for the whole issue with awarding contracts to foreign manufacturers. It wasn't a private clinic. What?

What massive blows? Like being forced to admit that he was wrong about Iraq? Sitting there like a dunce while he was criticized for not having a platform? Or when he was lambasted about the loss of manufacturing jobs?

You'll have to be more specific. What about the time Harper was going on about him being the only person who uses the public health care system and wouldn't give specifics; Paikin is the one who had to clarify that it was in reference to Layton using a clinic which in fact is NOT private. Harper really looked like a nob on that one.