@mirijb2@c18.masto.host @JohnCrowden@mstdn.ca
Alt text 3/n
The Constitution: Terms of Union, Not Suggestions
Any admission of new states must be governed strictly by the U.S. Constitution. Article
IV, Section 3 grants Congress the authority to admit new states into the Union.
Precedents such as the admission of Texas, Hawaii, and even parts of Mexico under the 1845-1848 expansionary period show that voluntary union is both legal and historically grounded. However, this must occur under the same rules that apply to all other states-there can be no "special terms," no exemptions from federal law, and no preservation of previous political systems.
@mirijb2@c18.masto.host @JohnCrowden@mstdn.ca
Alt text 4/n
The prospective states would need to dismantle their provincial governments as they are currentiy constructed, abandon Canadian legal codes, and adopt American jurisprudence in full. The supremacy of the U.S. Constitution would be total. Provincial laws on gun control, speech restrictions, crown lands, or religious education that conflict with American norms would be nullified. What emerges in their place would be genuine American states governed by legislatures and executives elected by their own people, with no foreign oversight or entanglements.
@mirijb2@c18.masto.host @JohnCrowden@mstdn.ca
Alt text 5/n
The Bill of Rights: Real Freedom, Not Bureaucratic Permission
For too long, Canadian citizens have been subjected to an illusion of freedom administered through bureaucratic means. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while lofty in rhetoric, provides no absolute protection—it is entirely subject to be overridden through legislative action and court interpretation. In contrast, the U.S. Bill of Rights recognizes liberties as inalienable. They are not permissions granted by the government, but protections against the government itself.
@mirijb2@c18.masto.host @JohnCrowden@mstdn.ca
Alt text 6/n
Perhaps the starkest example of this is the Second Amendment. In Canada, firearm ownership is subject to licensing, classification, and confiscation. In the United States, it is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed. Upon admission, residents of the new American states would have the same right to keep and bear arms as those in Texas, Florida, or Wyoming. No registration lists, no "may-issue" discretion, and no bureaucratic intrusion. Alongside that, their speech would be truly free. Political expression, religious conviction, and the right to assemble these would no longer be subject to the ever-changing winds of Canadian tribunals or hate speech commissions.
They would be protected under law, enforced through an independent judiciary, and preserved by a political culture that prizes liberty over sensitivity.
@mirijb2@c18.masto.host @JohnCrowden@mstdn.ca
Alt text 6/n
Perhaps the starkest example of this is the Second Amendment. In Canada, firearm ownership is subject to licensing, classification, and confiscation. In the United States, it is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed. Upon admission, residents of the new American states would have the same right to keep and bear arms as those in Texas, Florida, or Wyoming. No registration lists, no "may-issue" discretion, and no bureaucratic intrusion. Alongside that, their speech would be truly free. Political expression, religious conviction, and the right to assemble these would no longer be subject to the ever-changing winds of Canadian tribunals or hate speech commissions.
They would be protected under law, enforced through an independent judiciary, and preserved by a political culture that prizes liberty over sensitivity.
angela_underscore