Finally, The End Of Canada

FrontPageMag.com ^ | June 7, 2001 | Jamie Glazov

[HostileTerritory]

Hahaha.

What I meant was a little thanks for the tons of $$$ that proud Texans like Sam Rayburn and LBJ took from the productive parts of the country to help raise Texas up from third-world status to something approximating an American state.

That's not even including any accounting for what you did in the Civil War.

Again, I believe some gratitude is in order, not sass.

[Argh]

I come across this wet dream by some journalist or other about once a decade. I remember one from the early 60's that came with a map: the guy thought the capital of the combined country should be centrally located, so he selected Minneapolis-St. Paul. (That was in what is now the International Herald-Tribune, he may have been American).

[Argh]

P.S. I got a LARGE chuckle out of his shot at the worthless feminist bitch Margaret Atwood and the insufferable Pierre Berton.

[Cobra Scott]

One thing you leave out, just imagine if only alberta joined the US, even as only a territory; it would then be politically feasible to funnel virtually unlimited supplies of fresh water into the southwest. While other nations begin to scramble for the finite quantities of fossil fuels to support their huge populations, we would increase our arable land tenfold.

And once Alberta has shown the way, many of the rest will follow.

[ozzymandus]

You must be a Canadian. One of the really dumb ones, right?

[Agamemnon]

Actually, no constitutional amendment would be required in the United States. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that Congress may admit new states. IIRC, all it takes is a majority vote of both houses.

I'm not saying that a Constitutional amendment has to be passed for the US to essentially annex the country next door. The 3/4 concept is a great model to use for acquiring Canada's "better assests," since it is required for something as important as adopting and implementing amendments to the Constitution.

I imagine the wisdom of Founding Fathers realized that a credible national consensus should precede changes to the Constitution. In my view so also should a Nationalization consensus be established -- on both sides of the current borders as evidenced by a 3/4 endorsement as voiced by the people --we who have to live with each other -- and as voiced by their representatives --affirmation of a unified philosophy of government in the US mold.

All citizens will pledge allegiance to the US, and all government entities will swear to uphold the US Constitution. That will change alot of the currently corrupting and nationally unsustainable social policy in Canada overnight, I'd guess.

[conservative in nyc]

Fair enough. But no national consensus by plebiscite was necessary when the stakes of statehood were much higher in the 1800s. Think Missouri Compromise.

Of course, the states appointed Senators then, which isn't true today. Now, there is no one to look out for the interests of federalism.

[ggordon22]

Nice how you avoid answering any of the questions in my post. Would you like to try again?

[ozzymandus]

No, that's not my job. Your ignorance is not my fault. Do you work for (or deliver) the Globe and Mail?

[ggordon22]

Your ignorance is not my fault.

And whose fault is your fuzzy, unreasoned prejudice? It is a rare gift to be able to determine a person's morality by the geography they inhabit.

[lentulusgracchus]

Come on over and have a look. I got your gratitude right here.

Remember your posts.

[lormand]

"We will absorb Canada and Mexico will absorb California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas."

Perhaps those limp wristed panty wastes in New Mexico, Arizona and that giant lump of crap, Kalifornia will become Mexico, but not Texas.

Oh yeah, "I'm packing", but not packing up to leave.

Texas joining Mexico? Somebody told you wrong!