Skip to comments.
The 51st and 52nd states
National Post ^
| June 7, 2003
| Lawrence Solomon
Posted on 06/07/2003 11:21:23 AM PDT by Mister Magoo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
To: Mister Magoo
I would welcome Alberta.
Canada can keep modern British Columbia. Filled with too many leftist dopeheads.
61
posted on
06/07/2003 1:33:14 PM PDT
by
Dane
To: Mister Magoo
Maybe we should trade them California?
To: Mister Magoo
An extremely simplistic view here. Alberta could simply claim the special privileges that Quebec already has. Yeah, if not, why not? The biggest betrayal came in the Trudeau years against this Province. (The National Energy Policy).Even to this day, many Canadians do not realise exactly what this man was. His memory is enshrined by the government controlled television.
He forced certain people to hate Canada- that is part of his legacy, in my view. I have heard that it is the oil sands that present the biggest challenge to modern technology. If it could be solved- bye bye scurrying and flunkying around certain middle- east people. Well, some of us can dream, I guess. I worked in both Lethbridge and Medicine Hat, Alberta at one time.
To: Lunatic Fringe
When the liberals win the next election, the western provinces know they will be economically raped and pillaged for at least the next decade, all to the benefit of Quebec and the basket-case maritimes. What is fiction now is planning for later.
64
posted on
06/07/2003 2:26:22 PM PDT
by
gcruse
(Superstition is a mind in chains.)
To: Incorrigible
If this is true, why isn't Canada selling us this oil at today's market price.
As I recall, Canada does sell us that and buys world oil for eastern Canada's consumption.
We use more than we buy from them, evidently.
65
posted on
06/07/2003 2:28:36 PM PDT
by
gcruse
(Superstition is a mind in chains.)
To: gcruse
When the liberals win the next electionWe'll wait and see. In the meantime you might be suprised at the amounts of oil and natural gas those basket case maritimes are pumping into the Eastern US.
By 2004 Newfoundland isexpected to be producing 400,000 barrels a day .
, Exxon Mobil now estimates the potential conventional offshore oil reserves of Eastern Canada to be 40 billion barrels, compared with 34 billion for Western Canada.
The natural gas reserves of Newfoundland and Labrador are 62 trillion cubic feet. That would provide enough energy for more than 700 million homes for a year. In Nova Scotia, a new 653-mile pipeline is pumping natural gas from the 3.5-trillion-cubic-foot Sable reserve through New Brunswick, Maine and southern New Hampshire to link up with existing pipelines north of Boston.
66
posted on
06/07/2003 3:23:58 PM PDT
by
Snowyman
To: Snowyman
Excellent news. Is it showing up in the living standards out there? I know it was desperate for a long time.
67
posted on
06/07/2003 3:26:43 PM PDT
by
gcruse
(Superstition is a mind in chains.)
To: Incorrigible
I think it is tar sands oil, and probably costs more to recover because it requires heat injection or other expensive technology beyond drilling and pumping. So they can't sell it at the current market price and make any money. Just as you couldn't make a profit on ethanol without a massive government subsidy.
Flame away! I'm just speculating here.
68
posted on
06/07/2003 4:40:45 PM PDT
by
Sicvee
To: Sicvee
So they can't sell it at the current market price If I recall correctly it costs about a dollar a barrel in the ME to extract oil. Northern Alberta cost is something like 12 dollars a barrel. The last figure I saw was 15% of the US daily consumption is supplied by Canada. I did see one of 18% but I don't think it's quite that high.
69
posted on
06/07/2003 4:54:23 PM PDT
by
Snowyman
To: djf
I think that you mean the US Articles of Confederation, which allowed Canada to enter the Union without having to go through the Statehood route. Since the US Constitution superceeded the Articles of Confederation, I wonder if the Supreme Court of the US would say that any of its provisions related to Canada are still valid???
dvwjr
70
posted on
06/07/2003 5:21:10 PM PDT
by
dvwjr
To: dvwjr
The Articles of Confederation have priority over the Constitution. The legal term is "Precedent", and by English Common Law (which we follow) acts unless changed. That is why when the AofC says the United States is a perpetual union, it was binding on the states which later were created by the Union, as well as on the states which ratified the Union.
The 1783 Peace Treaty is also one of our founding documents, and has precedent over the Constitution, partly because it is prior, partly because it is a treaty, and even later treaties have precedent over the Constitution, once ratified by the Senate.
The way to get around an offensive and obnoxious treaty is to negotiate and sign a new treaty specifically revolking the noxious provision(s) of the old treaty. Another way, and this risks war with the treaty partner, is to pass a constitutional amendment ending the obligation. That is a one sided act, and would entitle the treaty partner to what ever the provisions are if the treaty is violated.
So-The treaty of 1783 is still valid, and Canada as a whole, or any separated portions which descend from Canada of 1783 could join our union. The only question is what representation would they get in terms of states. The Representatives would be simple, it is based on a formula. Would the vast empty of Yukon get the same number of Senators as the teaming millions of California? Gosh, I hope so!
71
posted on
06/07/2003 5:55:07 PM PDT
by
donmeaker
(Time is Relative, at least in my family.)
To: Mister Magoo
Better BC and Alberta than Puerto Rico.
72
posted on
06/07/2003 8:09:01 PM PDT
by
Clemenza
(East side, West side, all around the town. Tripping the light fantastic on the sidewalks of New York)
To: Mister Magoo
Getting into the Union isn't easy.Getting out is harder.
To: Husker24
Why join the United States, they should form thier own country. That sounds good. It would be nice to have a freindly country on our northern border, for a change.
74
posted on
06/07/2003 8:17:43 PM PDT
by
LibKill
(MOAB, the greatest advance in Foreign Relations since the cat-o'-nine-tails!)
To: Mister Magoo
Make it Yukon and NW Territories while you are at it!!! I'd like to see a gas pipeline from the North Slope.
75
posted on
06/07/2003 8:51:15 PM PDT
by
CPT Clay
To: dvwjr
TY! Been drivin me nuts all day trying to remember where it was... I reed two much!
76
posted on
06/07/2003 9:22:22 PM PDT
by
djf
To: Husker24
"Do you honestly think that the Democrats would let us drill for oil there if they were a 51st state? It would just be one huge wildlife preserve with higher taxes. "
The enviro groups won't even allow Alaska, our hugest state, to use their resources. So, you're right, Alberta would become one more big untouchable park where wildlife, arctic tundras, migrating birds, etc. take priority over the preservation of humanity's benefits.
77
posted on
06/08/2003 1:10:13 AM PDT
by
Susannah
(Veterans...the most treasured and endangered ones)
To: Centurion2000
Yes, Vancouver is left leaning, especially East Vancouver. However, the Interior of B.C. is CANADIAN ALLIANCE. The area I live in has NEVER voted in any other representative but very conservative ones. We were extremely fortunate to have the Social Credit Party in B.C. for many many years. Thanks to the Left leaning media and nut-case Chinese realtor, they were able to create a false scandal and dismantle the best part short of the Canadian Alliance EVER to run this Province. We were fortunate to have them for nearly 20 years. However, what is happening now is that B.C. has nice weather, so all the Eastern and Central Canada retirees are heading here to retire and bringing their God awful attitudes with them. Believe me, tho there is a battle waging for the Conservative ways in this Province.
78
posted on
06/09/2003 1:38:18 PM PDT
by
Canadian Outrage
(All us Western Canuks belong South)
To: xm177e2
The tar sands are much more "costly" to extract oil from than pumping it straight from the ground.
79
posted on
06/09/2003 1:39:36 PM PDT
by
Canadian Outrage
(All us Western Canuks belong South)
To: Husker24
There are plenty of us Christians in B.C. also!! In the city in which I live, Kelowna, there are more Churches than any City in Canada (per capita)!! or so it was 5 years ago.
80
posted on
06/09/2003 1:41:27 PM PDT
by
Canadian Outrage
(All us Western Canuks belong South)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson