Should Canada Allow American States to Join Confederation?

[kengs333]

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

[Smallc]

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

I don't think we should really speculate about such things as all of those states are still part of The United States of America.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think we should really speculate about such things as all of those states are still part of The United States of America.

I agree....there are far greater threats of separation right at home in Quebec and Alberta. Besides, the American states cannot legally secede fron the Union, and Canada is in no position to make such a decision stick.

[Smallc]

I agree....there are far greater threats of separation right at home in Quebec and Alberta.

Why must you take jabs even when agreeing? Perhaps its the "American way," I don't really know. It doesn't really matter what you say though, because the chances of either province separating are close to zero.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why must you take jabs even when agreeing? Perhaps its the "American way," I don't really know. It doesn't really matter what you say though, because the chances of either province separating are close to zero.

If stating the obvious is taking "jabs", then clearly you have a glass jaw. The Clarity Act exists because the chances are definitely not close to zero.

[Smallc]

If stating the obvious is taking "jabs", then clearly you have a glass jaw. The Clarity Act exists because the chances are definitely not close to zero.

The existence of the Clarity Act makes it so that the chances are close to zero. Even you should be able to figure that out. Even without the act, the chances would still be quite small.

[bush_cheney2004]

The existence of the Clarity Act makes it so that the chances are close to zero. Even you should be able to figure that out. Even without the act, the chances would still be quite small.

OK..if you say so. Remind me never to go to the horsetrack with you and your calculus for "chances".

[kengs333]

I don't think we should really speculate about such things as all of those states are still part of The United States of America.

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.

[kengs333]

I agree....there are far greater threats of separation right at home in Quebec and Alberta. Besides, the American states cannot legally secede fron the Union, and Canada is in no position to make such a decision stick.

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Secession would only be legal by mutual consent, not unilateral action. States are not admitted to the Union by unilateral decision either, hence they cannot secede or be expelled in such a manner. This matter is considered settled case law (e.g. Texas vs. White), to wit:

...When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

[Guest American Woman]

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

There's "strong separatist" movements going on in those states? That's news to me.

[Smallc]

There's "strong separatist" movements going on in those states? That's news to me.

They're probably about as strong as the movement in Alberta and not quite as strong as the one that currently exists in Quebec....that is to say....there isn't much of one at all.

[kengs333]

Secession would only be legal by mutual consent, not unilateral action. States are not admitted to the Union by unilateral decision either, hence they cannot secede or be expelled in such a manner. This matter is considered settled case law (e.g. Texas vs. White), to wit:

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.

[kengs333]

There's "strong separatist" movements going on in those states? That's news to me.

Second Vermont Republic

Republic of New Hampshire

aslo, google "Montana secession"

and add Alaska and Hawaii to the list...

[kengs333]

They're probably about as strong as the movement in Alberta and not quite as strong as the one that currently exists in Quebec....that is to say....there isn't much of one at all.

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.

[Smallc]

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.

Maybe, but its not all that big of a threat to keeping the nation together.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Whatever...your firm opinion doesn't change the case law and status of states with a few huckleberries desiring secession. It ain't a going to happen.....

[kengs333]

Maybe, but its not all that big of a threat to keeping the nation together.

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

[kengs333]

Whatever...your firm opinion doesn't change the case law and status of states with a few huckleberries desiring secession. It ain't a going to happen.....

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...

[Smallc]

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...

Do you really think those states would vote to leave? I sincerely doubt it.

[bush_cheney2004]

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...

Oh Christ....you've got even more of nothing but plenty to say about it. The Americans fought a war over such things, so I don't think your analysis or opinion are going to win the day. Just a hunch....

[kengs333]

Do you really think those states would vote to leave? I sincerely doubt it.

Yes, it's quite possible, or they would simply revolt. The United States will not last forever; that is a fact born out by history.

[kengs333]

Oh Christ....you've got even more of nothing but plenty to say about it. The Americans fought a war over such things, so I don't think your analysis or opinion are going to win the day. Just a hunch....

That's right. The Federal government went to war against a group of states exercising their right to self-determination and self-government. I'm not agreeing with the politics of the South, but they had every right to do what they did.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's right. The Federal government went to war against a group of states exercising their right to self-determination and self-government. I'm not agreeing with the politics of the South, but they had every right to do what they did.

Yes....they had every right to die for a right that did not exist....and still doesn't. What does any of this have to do with Canada permitting such states to join confederation? This was about Canada...remember?

[moderateamericain]

Yes....they had every right to die for a right that did not exist....and still doesn't. What does any of this have to do with Canada permitting such states to join confederation? This was about Canada...remember?

I live in Michigan. You don't want Michigan absorbed into Canada, trust me. The economy here is shit. You would inherite a million welfare recpients in Detroit over night. Waste of your time. Alaska New hampshire, vermont Maine on the other hand. Might be worth a shot. I doubt you will get the US to give up Alaska because of Oil though.

Edited October 6, 2008 by moderateamericain