Just Thinking

Just Thinking

Postby BC_Dan » Aug 31, 2013 9:14 pm

Although the idea of strengthening NA by uniting the US and Canada is attractive, I find it hard to imagine how these large federations could join. But if it were possible, why stop there?

Whether they call themselves unions or federations, Canada, the US, Australia and even the UK are amalgams of quasi-countries. Individual members of the existing political structures -- Alaska, Scotland, Alberta, Queensland, California, etc. -- would all have to join together to negotiate a new Federation; a modern-day constitutional convention. Quite a task!

Strengthening the relationship between these countries would be good news for those who love freedom, but it's hard to set petty nationalism aside. It seems to only happen when there is an external threat, i.e., Canadian Confederation was a reaction to US expansionism and the other colonies only united in order to gain independence from a mad king and a far away parliament that was largely indifferent to the aspirations of the colonies.

As we face increased industrial competition from Asia and ideological threats from oil-rich theocracies, perhaps it's time for us to band together to assure that government "Of, by and for the People" will prevail. I’d rather sacrifice some national sovereignty than see Canada and Australia become simple "hewers of wood and drawers of water" for the insatiable Asian market, the UK be lost in a sea of squabbling European mediocrity, and US become a second-rate power.

One important step toward creating a rich, strong union of like-minded freedom-loving people would be to move to a system of common citizenship and immigration. How many exceptional doctors, scientists, engineers and other professionals never were because there was no reason for bright children to train for a field that would force them to emigrate to another country to find a job? Rather than be limited to local employment opportunities, a Louisianan welder ought to be free to find work in the oilfields of Alberta, a Scot could pursue a career in Silicon Valley or a highly specialized surgeon from Australia set up a practice in Houston. Just one rule: When in Rome...

Unfortunately, we don’t have nation builders like Franklin, Jefferson, Seward or MacDonald anymore. Instead, we have a man who seems intent on breaking whatever connections the US still has with its strongest allies, one who believes these countries are just relics of hated colonialism.

Oh well.
User avatar
BC_Dan
Observer
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Jul 25, 2012 10:16 pm
Location: British-Columbia

Re: Just Thinking

Postby Hephaestos » Sep 02, 2013 9:56 pm

I think an Anglosphere confederation is a great idea! It's actually been suggested before on these forums and it's more necessary now than ever.

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=893

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=8932

Western civilization and the Anglosphere in particular are under siege and our technological, financial and military supremacy is being seriously challenged by countries like China, India and Brazil. We could best preserve our dominant position in the world by uniting and working together as one. Of course as you mentioned here in America we are stuck with Barack Hussein Obama whose whole mindset is derived not from American or Anglosphere political tradition but rather African socialism he inherited from his communist Kenyan father.
The truth is like a lion, you don't have to defend it. Let it loose, it will defend itself. - St. Augustine of Hippo
User avatar
Hephaestos
Supporter
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Apr 17, 2012 10:05 pm
Location: New York

Re: Just Thinking

Postby Americalex » Nov 08, 2013 7:08 pm

BC_Dan, my view is that the how of Canada joining the US is quite important, as it would provide the precedent and framework for other naturally friendly nations to join also, hence enabling your vision in a tangible way.

So what are we dealing with then. A sovereign annexation of Canada to the United States of America. By annexation we mean the capitalist sense of "joining something, with something similar but bigger". By sovereign we mean, achieved through the consent of the governed and in respect for the traditions and institutions of the involved parties.

Knowing this, we can start to envisage how the how will present itself. For Canada's part, any such drastic alternation of the nature of our country requires the support of all 10 premiers, of the federal government, and of the British Monarch through his or her royal ascent to a given act of sovereign annexation.

On the American side, it is relatively straightforward (on the surface): all it requires is the support of congress. However in reality and as we know, congress is very partisan and it would be close to impossible to get anything through, especially since in all likelihood some/many constitutional amendments would be required in order to achieve support on both sides of the border.

So on the American side my feeling is that going for a Constitutional Convention is the best way to achieve annexation. More lawful because it then includes the support of 75% of the state governments, on top of the federal government. In both countries the respective regional and federal governments could have referendums or whatever approach they prefer.

As a Canadian joining the U.S., I wouldn't want the U.S. to be an open house where all the most barbaric nations end up joining simply because a corrupt crop at the top think its a nifty idea. One of the amendments I'd want included in that fusion is an "Entering & Exiting the Union" amendment. Basically requirement support from 75% of states for either joining or exiting.

Another aspect is clarifying the roles of the general government, which can only be done by first restoring selected senators to represent the State governments, hence putting the constitution back in application, and ending the blatant conflict of interest that results from having one of the three branches of the american government (the supreme court), being the arbiter of the limits on that government (which makes zero sense from a rational perspective).

Once this is achieved we could clearly delineate which powers are delegated by the states to the federal government, and which are not. Clearly in the case of Quebec we'd want official language to stay at the state level. I'd like to see the same attribution to religion: eventually allowing Israel to become a member with Judaism as its official religion, and in the same breath allowing states that want one or many official religions to have them, such as Utah & Mormonism.

In Quebec it could be Humanism, or Catholicism, or both, or none, etc.

But you get the idea that this would then provide the precedent and framework for nations like Australia and New Zealand but also others like Iceland and Norway etc. to also seek membership within this rejuvenated Western civilization. One of the key issues to empower this reforging of the Occident is the allowance of Constitutional Monarchy at the state level, in my opinion.
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Just Thinking

Postby -MM- » Nov 11, 2013 6:51 pm

Americalex wrote:As a Canadian joining the U.S., I wouldn't want the U.S. to be an open house where all the most barbaric nations end up joining simply because a corrupt crop at the top think its a nifty idea. One of the amendments I'd want included in that fusion is an "Entering & Exiting the Union" amendment. Basically requirement support from 75% of states for either joining or exiting.


This would need an amendment to the constitution. While I agree with you (75-80% of other states approval to allow another to secede) I'm not sure Congress will bend and allow this to happen.

EDIT: Forgot to add here that when people signed to secede from the US after Obama won again, the white house replied saying:

Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States "in order to form a more perfect union" through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it. As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, "in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual." In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States. And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that "[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."


Implying that if you join, you join for good. I'm not sure I agree with that and I think a vote from the other states allowing them to secede would be better, but that seem to be the rule now.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/respon ... ain-united


Americalex wrote:Once this is achieved we could clearly delineate which powers are delegated by the states to the federal government, and which are not. Clearly in the case of Quebec we'd want official language to stay at the state level. I'd like to see the same attribution to religion: eventually allowing Israel to become a member with Judaism as its official religion, and in the same breath allowing states that want one or many official religions to have them, such as Utah & Mormonism.

In Quebec it could be Humanism, or Catholicism, or both, or none, etc.

But you get the idea that this would then provide the precedent and framework for nations like Australia and New Zealand but also others like Iceland and Norway etc. to also seek membership within this rejuvenated Western civilization. One of the key issues to empower this reforging of the Occident is the allowance of Constitutional Monarchy at the state level, in my opinion.


There's separation between church and state, but I'm not sure if it's illegal for a state to make a religion official (maybe you could enlighten me on this?), but even if a religion is made official on a state, they would have to allow others in the state to choose their own religion and could not discriminate against those that desired to follow another religion in the state. I also don't think state taxes should be used for religious reasons. Anyways, I don't think the hardest part for Israel joining would be an "official religion", but their geological location. It would be a major target by being a US territory and it would take a lot of money and manpower to defend it and keep it safe, besides being hard to defend due to its position.

If I had my way, after PR, Canada, and possibly Mexico are annexed, I would prefer Greenland/Iceland to join. Greenland would have to be purchased from Denmark and Iceland would be joining out of free will. And then, after that, other nations that are geologically far like NZ, Australia, UK (well UK wouldn't be that far on my scenario) would join if both sides so desired.
User avatar
-MM-
Supporter
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Jul 17, 2013 1:03 am

Re: Just Thinking

Postby Americalex » Nov 11, 2013 10:10 pm

Yes, the union is perpetual, and it would continue to perpetuate itself even after a given state has seceded basically. There is no defined framework for allowing a state to leave that is true, however that framework exists under the generic framework of a constitutional amendment. I also think that the entering aspect is just as important: I don't want to be part of a country where a congress with dismal approval rating can chose to make Pakistan "a part of us" on a whim either.

As for religion, yes this is the case, I'm talking about official religion like is currently the case in Britain and Norway. Not everyone is Britain is Anglican and yet, it is the official religion. There is a distinction also between a state religion, and an official religion. Also worthy of note is how the masonic principle of division of church and state is not a division of religion and state: it is simply anti-christian in its focus. It has no problem with having humanism as the state religion, etc.
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20145
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec


Return to Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
cron