[tpaine]

Admitting new Canadian or Mexican States would force us to address the issue of 'majority rule'.
Under our republican form of constitutional government, it does NOT rule.
-- It is long overdue to reassert that principle whether, ~or not~, we add new States.

Yeah, but the problem is that very shortly after the Mexes and Canucks are allowed to vote along with US Citizens, we will no longer HAVE a "constitutional republic".

Circular argument; - a 'majority' does not have the power to change our Constitutions principles, one of which is a 'non-democratic' republican form of government ruled by only constitutional laws.

We'll be a "parliamentary democracy"--which has been the goal ever since Woodrow Wilson was president. The Constitution will be kaput.

It's strange to be forced to argue that our liberties cannot be 'voted away'. -- Why do so many people on this forum argue otherwise? -- Why is the concept of majority rule supported?

[Wonder Warthog]

"Circular argument; - a 'majority' does not have the power to change our Constitutions principles, one of which is a 'non-democratic' republican form of government ruled by only constitutional laws."

And the authors of the original Constitution were only going to amend the "Articles of Confederation", too.

"It's strange to be forced to argue that our liberties cannot be 'voted away'. -- Why do so many people on this forum argue otherwise? -- Why is the concept of majority rule supported?"

Because that's the reality. A big chunk of our "Constitutional liberties" have ALREADY been "voted away" by our own Congress. See "campaign finance reform" for the most recent example.