Should Canada Allow American States to Join Confederation?

[kengs333]

Jesus Christ man..are you daft? I have already articulated the process for doing so as ruled on by the USSC. States cannot join/leave the Union unilaterally.

Let's refrain from mudslinging. No, what you've done is "articulated" that there is no real process, because the Federal government would never agree to any such action since it would undermine authority. That means that states, or groups of peoples within the United States, are being denied their fundamental human right to self-determination.

You have proven nothing. Using your logic, every human being on the planet could incorporate as a single nation state.

Listen, the concept of self-determination applies to a GROUP of people--if you had any understanding of the concept, you would not be making silly assertions bout individual-based nation states. The right to self-determination is considered a human right.

Thank you for admitting the obvious after I told you three times.

No, you've only offered armed rebellion and the Federal government allowing it to happen. What I'm talking about is the right for a state to decide on its own, based on the will of its citizens, to remove itself from the United States.

[kengs333]

They shouldn't have the ability to leave the union. We're a nation of United States. If people don't like it, they can move somewhere else.

Why not? There is no valid reason why a state should not be able to leave the union.

People who want their state to be free and self-governing feel this way because they love their state, so leaving is an absurd proposition.

[Guest American Woman]

Why not? There is no valid reason why a state should not be able to leave the union.

People who want their state to be free and self-governing feel this way because they love their state, so leaving is an absurd proposition.

And people who love their state and their country don't want it seceding, so allowing a state to secede is an absurd proposition. There's your valid reason as to why a state should not be able to leave the union.

[bush_cheney2004]

Let's refrain from mudslinging. No, what you've done is "articulated" that there is no real process, because the Federal government would never agree to any such action since it would undermine authority. That means that states, or groups of peoples within the United States, are being denied their fundamental human right to self-determination.

Err...no...as "mudslinging" is a basic human right too. What part of states not being admitted or seceding from the Union unilaterally do you not understand? Why would the processes not be adjudicated the same way?

Listen, the concept of self-determination applies to a GROUP of people--if you had any understanding of the concept, you would not be making silly assertions bout individual-based nation states. The right to self-determination is considered a human right.

Utter nonsense....I have demonstrated your contention to be a logical fallacy.

No, you've only offered armed rebellion and the Federal government allowing it to happen. What I'm talking about is the right for a state to decide on its own, based on the will of its citizens, to remove itself from the United States.

For the umpteenth time....a state does not join the Union that way either. States also have constitutions and obligations for all citizens, not just a few huckleberries with a web site.

Edited October 7, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[moderateamericain]

Kengs,

The chances of a state leaving the Union is about the same chance as me slamming my manhood in a door. IE it is not going to happen. Don't worry about whether or not its legal, worry about whether or not your question is so far fetched to the point of absurd. Save your time and energy on debating things that are in the realm of reason.

[White Doors]

Kengs,

The chances of a state leaving the Union is about the same chance as me slamming my manhood in a door. IE it is not going to happen. Don't worry about whether or not its legal, worry about whether or not your question is so far fetched to the point of absurd. Save your time and energy on debating things that are in the realm of reason.

I gather you are not familiar with this poster?

[kengs333]

Kengs,

The chances of a state leaving the Union is about the same chance as me slamming my manhood in a door. IE it is not going to happen. Don't worry about whether or not its legal, worry about whether or not your question is so far fetched to the point of absurd. Save your time and energy on debating things that are in the realm of reason.

Hate to break it to you, but the Roman Empire doesn't exist anymore. Nor does Charlemagne's Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire... Political entities form, and then break apart again. This has happened all throughout history. To suggest that this sort of thing cannot happen to the United States is absurd. Well, it already happened once, and was ruthlessly suppressed.

Edited October 9, 2008 by kengs333

[g_bambino]

They shouldn't have the ability to leave the union. We're a nation of United States. If people don't like it, they can move somewhere else.

Or, the borders can be moved around them so that they are somewhere else.

[Radsickle]

It's amusing how unsettling a topic this is for the Americans reading it. I suppose the thought of a whole state getting fed-up with the Union and leaving is unthinkable.

Change happens.

[kengs333]

Err...no...as "mudslinging" is a basic human right too. What part of states not being admitted or seceding from the Union unilaterally do you not understand? Why would the processes not be adjudicated the same way?

Because admitting and seceding are not the same thing. If a "state" wants to be admitted to the Union, then it is based on the belief that this would be mutually beneficial. States would want to secede when they feel that the Federal government is behaving in such a way that the rights and freedoms of the citizens of the state are threatened.

Utter nonsense....I have demonstrated your contention to be a logical fallacy.

You don't know what a logical fallacy is, then, it would seem. If you care to actually research the concept of self-determination, you'd learn that it is considered a human right.

For the umpteenth time....a state does not join the Union that way either. States also have constitutions and obligations for all citizens, not just a few huckleberries with a web site.

I don't think that 12 to 20% of the population of a state constitutes "a few huckleberries with a web site".

[bush_cheney2004]

Because admitting and seceding are not the same thing. If a "state" wants to be admitted to the Union, then it is based on the belief that this would be mutually beneficial. States would want to secede when they feel that the Federal government is behaving in such a way that the rights and freedoms of the citizens of the state are threatened.

Right....the Confederacy tried that and were not very successful. Maybe you missed that bit of history.

You don't know what a logical fallacy is, then, it would seem. If you care to actually research the concept of self-determination, you'd learn that it is considered a human right.

Uh oh...you've downgraded it to just a concept instead of a basic human right.

I don't think that 12 to 20% of the population of a state constitutes "a few huckleberries with a web site".

I don't think you know what constitutes a state.

[kengs333]

Right....the Confederacy tried that and were not very successful. Maybe you missed that bit of history.

Or maybe you missed this part of my response in post #57:

"Hate to break it to you, but the Roman Empire doesn't exist anymore. Nor does Charlemagne's Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire... Political entities form, and then break apart again. This has happened all throughout history. To suggest that this sort of thing cannot happen to the United States is absurd. Well, it already happened once, and was ruthlessly suppressed."

Uh oh...you've downgraded it to just a concept instead of a basic human right.

Looks to me like you have a reading comprehension problem.

I don't think you know what constitutes a state.

Goodness, what an absurd statement... Is my use of the term state in a general and specific manner in the same argument confusing you?

[bush_cheney2004]

Or maybe you missed this part of my response in post #57:

"Hate to break it to you, but the Roman Empire doesn't exist anymore. Nor does Charlemagne's Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire... Political entities form, and then break apart again. This has happened all throughout history. To suggest that this sort of thing cannot happen to the United States is absurd. Well, it already happened once, and was ruthlessly suppressed."

I never suggested it couldn't / won't. But the US existed without 50 states in case you didn't know.

Looks to me like you have a reading comprehension problem.

Correct...your posts are incomprehensible.

Goodness, what an absurd statement... Is my use of the term state in a general and specific manner in the same argument confusing you?

I knew it...you really don't know what you're talking about...again.

[moderateamericain]

Hate to break it to you, but the Roman Empire doesn't exist anymore. Nor does Charlemagne's Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire... Political entities form, and then break apart again. This has happened all throughout history. To suggest that this sort of thing cannot happen to the United States is absurd. Well, it already happened once, and was ruthlessly suppressed.

God your thick. Let me try this again. In your or my life span. Its not going to happen. 100 years from now, hell anything is possible but ill be a plant by then.

[M.Dancer]

I don't think that 12 to 20% of the population of a state constitutes "a few huckleberries with a web site".

Cite please.

[Guest American Woman]

It's amusing how unsettling a topic this is for the Americans reading it. I suppose the thought of a whole state getting fed-up with the Union and leaving is unthinkable.

Change happens.

There's a huge difference between "unsettling" and ludicrous, so you might want to educate yourself there. But since you brought it up, yes, the thought of a "whole" state getting fed up and wanting to leave is not only unthinkable, not only improbable, but I can say with complete certainty, it would never happen.

[g_bambino]

There's a huge difference between "unsettling" and ludicrous, so you might want to educate yourself there. But since you brought it up, yes, the thought of a "whole" state getting fed up and wanting to leave is not only unthinkable, not only improbable, but I can say with complete certainty, it would never happen.

Yet it happened before. Why do you feel that it's patently impossible that it could ever happen again? It's hypothetical, of course, but the possibility exists, does it not?

[guyser]

... wanting to leave is not only unthinkable, not only improbable, but I can say with complete certainty, it would never happen.

Unthinkable, yes , improbable yes , never happen.......er not so sure about that one.

Hawaii ?

"Texas first" you know. Thats what they say all the time.

I seriously doubt it will ever happen too. The economy would have to suffer horribly and the constitution would have to be trampled severely for it to come to fruition.

But never? Capone was jailed, eventually.

[bush_cheney2004]

...But never? Capone was jailed, eventually.

Ironically...the most probable scenario is already in the Confederation.

[kengs333]

There's a huge difference between "unsettling" and ludicrous, so you might want to educate yourself there. But since you brought it up, yes, the thought of a "whole" state getting fed up and wanting to leave is not only unthinkable, not only improbable, but I can say with complete certainty, it would never happen.

Just like another Great Depression...

[Murray B.]

The U.S. separtists that have the longest history are probably the Cascadis Party. They trace their roots back to the time of Thomas Jefferson when B.C. was part of Oregon. As far as I know the Cascadians do not want to join with Canada, especially with eastern Canada.

Actually, depite all the yelling and hollering I believe that it will be B.C. that will be first to separate from Canada and not Quebec or Alberta. There is a lot of history there and B.C. really got screwed with the freight rates. The truth is they would be a better off as part of Cascadia.

Maybe the CSIS can continue to preserve the status quo but since we almost fought a war with the U.S. over B.C. before [search "Fifty-four Forty or Fight"] I expect they will have a tough time of it.

[OddSox]

http://republicofnh.org/platform.html

- Free trade with all!

- No more federal income tax: keep all of the money you earn!

- No more IRS!

- No more Drug War!

- No More PATRIOT Act!

...

To heck with Canada, if the 'Republic of New Hampshire' comes about, we should all join them!

[Mad_Michael]

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 believe only Texas has the constitution right to susceed from the Union.

The last time some states tried to sucseed from the Union, that resulted in war. On this basis, even discussing the topic is absurd.