US Constitutional Experts: Statehood

[Karim]

With recent developments in Ottawa, I've been hearing more and more about Alberta separation. It's always been a component of western alienation so it's not likely to be more than an emotional reaction to the government of the day. And it has always been with the intention of being a new country rather than joining the United States.

Nonetheles, as a thought exercise, how would a former Canadian province become a US state? Does there have to be a Congressional vote? Is there an application process? Would US citizenship be granted automatically or would Alberta residents have to be part of the union for a while?

I can't begin to think of the complexity of negotiations. It sure would make the lawyers happy.

[ISiddiqui]

Congress would decide how to make it a state. It's up to them. Though as soon as they became a state, all the citizens of the state become US citizens (due to the 14th Amendment).

[ShaqFu]

I'll give it a shot:

My guess is that Alberta would have to secede (become independent) from Canada (and the UK). At that point, the citizens of an independent Alberta would have to vote on remaining independent or agree to annexation by the United States. And, than the United States would have to agree to annex Alberta. How would the Canadian and British government respond if one of its provinces were to secede? How would they respond if the USA annexed one its provinces?

[stevew]

In this situation, Lance Storm would have to work on a new in-ring gimmick. Calgary, Alberta, United States doesnt sound that good.

[Karim]

The 1931 Statute of Westminster severed ties with the UK. Canada is still part of the Commonwealth with the Monarch as Head of State but it is purely ceremonial.

Probably not in my lifetime but I can see a customs union developing and eventually some sort of political union with the US. Integration is happening more all the time and the differences, exaggerated by Canadians, are not all that great. But that's probably the Albertan in me talking...

[Karim]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Congress would decide how to make it a state. It's up to them. Though as soon as they became a state, all the citizens of the state become US citizens (due to the 14th Amendment).

When you say "how" do you mean they could carve up the territory into more than one political entity?

[TazFTW]

I would think 'how' would at least entitle how many electoral votes and house seats it would have, setting up a state government, adding districts and what not.

Alberta would probably have to be an independent nation for a while before the US would consider making it a state (which as previously said Alberta would need to apply for statehood).

[Mr. Wednesday]

I'd say that the best examples we have of the process are the annexation of Texas and Hawaii.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

I would think 'how' would at least entitle how many electoral votes and house seats it would have, setting up a state government, adding districts and what not.

The number of Representatives in the House does not change. It is, AFAIK, Constitutionally locked at 435, with each Representative serving a certain average population (although every state must have at least one Representative).

So, what it boils down to is that you'd add the population of Alberta to that of the existing United States, and divide by 435. That should yield the number of constituents each House member should average. Once you have that number, divide the population of Alberta by the average population per Representative, add two (for Senators), and you've got a rough idea of how many electoral votes Alberta would have as a single state.

ShaqFu is correct about the statehood process, I believe. First they have to detach themselves - as Texas did from Mexico - and then they have to vote to be annexed by the United States. The Congress must then vote to annex Alberta, at which point Alberta, once annexed, votes on statehood, assuming it meets a certain population threshold. It's a straight up or down vote.

As to how the rest of Canada would handle it, I suspect they'd be far more upset about Alberta leaving than they would about Québec...and I think long before it got to that point, they'd make a move to try to redress Alberta's grievances. You don't just let the breadbasket of your nation up and walk away if you can prevent it.

[JeffR]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

So, what it boils down to is that you'd add the population of Alberta to that of the existing United States, and divide by 435. That should yield the number of constituents each House member should average. Once you have that number, divide the population of Alberta by the average population per Representative, add two (for Senators), and you've got a rough idea of how many electoral votes Alberta would have as a single state.

Population is 3.2 million, so that works out to 4-5 Representatives and 6-7 electoral votes.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JeffR

Population is 3.2 million, so that works out to 4-5 Representatives and 6-7 electoral votes.

That's probably not too far off. The 435 in the House is actually a practical limit as well as a Constitutional one; the House simply isn't large enough to accomodate increased seating, whereas the Senate has plenty of room for expansion.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by JeffR

so that works out to 4-5 Representatives and 6-7 electoral votes.

Is that before or after the exchange rate?

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's probably not too far off. The 435 in the House is actually a practical limit.

This is the truth. There is no set number in the Constitution as to the size of the House of Reps. The exact wording is

Originally Posted by Constitution

"Representatives...shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers...The actual enumeration shall be made... and within every subsequent term of ten years in such a manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state shall have at least one Representative.

In other words based on the census Congress may pass a law stating how many reps each state should get as long as the ratio isn't greater than 1 Rep for every 30,000 citizens.

But practically speaking it is unlikely that the House will ever expand much beyond its current 435, although the admission of a new state (such as Puerto Rico, or in this case Alberta) could make that more likely.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

This is the truth. There is no set number in the Constitution as to the size of the House of Reps.
.

In 1911, Public Law 62-5 set the membership of the U.S. House at 433; with the subsequent admission of Arizona and New Mexico as states, membership increased to 435, where it has remained (except for a brief period from 1959 to 1963 following the admission of Alaska and Hawaii, during which House membership was 437).

[Surtt]

Dola

It is just a law passed by congress, and changeable, not a constitutional mandate.

[Warhammer]

I remember talking to a guy from Edmonton a few years back. He claimed that if Quebec had seceded, Canada would have ceased to exist. The Maritime Provinces would join the US first, closely followed by BC. Then Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba would join the US. That would leave just Ontario and the Territories left.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Karim

When you say "how" do you mean they could carve up the territory into more than one political entity?

I'm sure they could if they wanted and Albertans agreed. Though I don't think there would be much point. After all, they carved up the Northwest Territories and the Louisiana Purchase into multiple states.

Oh, and as for the 435 thing, that isn't a Constitutional limit, but a legislative one, as others have pointed out. I think that number may need to be expanded with the increases in population, but that would require expanding the Congress building.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I remember talking to a guy from Edmonton a few years back. He claimed that if Quebec had seceded, Canada would have ceased to exist. The Maritime Provinces would join the US first, closely followed by BC. Then Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba would join the US. That would leave just Ontario and the Territories left.

Yes, I've heard this too. After the independence of Quebec, the maritimes would immediately seek US statehood--as they were the worst off of all the provinces economically. Newfoundland may seek a return to UK rule (as people from Newfoundland were never completely of one mind when it came to confederation with Canada when it happened in the mid 20th century). I've also heard that aside from Ontario, BC has the best chance of surviving as an independent nation because of it's Pacific trade links. There is some debate as to whether Quebec's economy is strong enough to maintain independence...

[Wolfpack]

Technically, I don't think the US has to wait until Alberta leaves Canada. By all rights, the US Congress could go completely off its rocker and announce an annexation of Alberta tomorrow, if it liked. However, the government of Canada may object rather loudly to such an act.

In that instance, I suppose it is theoretically possible for Alberta to go straight to the US, if Canada and the Albertans agree on doing so. Otherwise, Alberta does need to severe ties and then the US annexes. There is no timetable for such steps written anywhere in the Constitution, though. I would also wager that Albertans would not like to be treated as a territory for very long, if at all. Either go all the way and join the Union or become a commonwealth dependent like Puerto Rico.

As to how the actual process works, according to Article IV, Section 3: "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress." However, it does not elaborate what exactly that process is. As others have noted, it would likely be similar to the annexation of Texas, where the US Congress put up a resolution declaring a desire to annex the country and the Texas government agreed to it with one of their own resolutions.

Puerto Rico and DC are two other examples. Generally, the Congress has been willing to consider statehood for PR, but it gets voted down by the residents every time it comes up. On the other hand, DC residents have lobbied for a long time to become a state, but Congress has shown no willingness to do so (and this is true regardless of which party has been controlling the Congress).

Interestingly, I believe Congress, and Congress alone, is allowed to admit states. IOW, the President and the courts have no authority in this issue, since such acts of Congress I don't think require a presidential signature or judicial approval because they really aren't bills or laws.

[finketr]

combine north and south dakota into one state and then annex alberta.

would the maritime provinces have joined as the independent entities they are today, or would they have been forced to consolidate somewhat?

[Galaxy]

Would we want Alberta to join the US?

[Surtt]

All we should annex is New Brunswick. It's always bugged me that Mane doesn't go all the way up to the Saint Lawrence.

[Karim]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Would we want Alberta to join the US?

I suspect billions in oil revenue would be attractive. That and the fact outside of the United States, there are more Americans (~50,000) living in Calgary than any place in the world.

[Karim]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

I would also wager that Albertans would not like to be treated as a territory for very long, if at all. Either go all the way and join the Union or become a commonwealth dependent like Puerto Rico.

I tend to agree. More than likely, Alberta would try and convince the other western provinces to join along, especially British Columbia. Otherwise, it would go alone for a while. I suspect how successful it was would determine the desire for entry into the US.

[TazFTW]

Originally Posted by stevew

In this situation, Lance Storm would have to work on a new in-ring gimmick. Calgary, Alberta, United States doesnt sound that good.

Bret Hart, American? This must not happen.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Karim

I tend to agree. More than likely, Alberta would try and convince the other western provinces to join along, especially British Columbia. Otherwise, it would go alone for a while. I suspect how successful it was would determine the desire for entry into the US.

I would suspect that Alberta may have a hard time convincing BC to join--I'm under the impression that BC is a bit more liberal/cosmopolitan than the rest of Western Canada. I've heard that Alberta is the most conservative of the Canadian provinces, thus they would feel the most at home with American social and cultural values. I'm not sure how willing other Canadians are to cede their identity and shift to a slightly different way of life that union with America would bring.

I would also think that some Americans might object to having a conservative province enter the union, unless more liberal provinces are also brought in. Of course, it could get interesting to see what would happen since these provinces would become states in the union that would have socialized medicine and gay marriage...

[judicial clerk]

I'd say that the best examples we have of the process are the annexation of Texas and Hawaii.

I'd argue the best examples we have of the process would be Iraq 1 and 2. I want that Albertan oil!

[Galaxy]

Will this mean the Calgary Stampeders and Edmonton Eskimos will join the NFL now?

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Surtt

All we should annex is New Brunswick. It's always bugged me that Mane doesn't go all the way up to the Saint Lawrence.

Errumm...getting New Brunswick wouldn't do that, either. Quebec owns both banks of the St. Lawrence River above Maine.

As to other points of discussion:
I would think that the Maritimes would join as independent states rather than a conglomerate. Each of those provinces are as different as any state from one another, identity wise (having spent my honeymoon out there a few years ago, I know this to be so). Geography lends to this a bit as well, with NS sort of hanging off the edge of the continent save a chunk of land and PEI being, well, an island.

As to the Newfies, I could see mainland Laborador reverting to Quebec possibly, but the island would likely either sign up with the US or as someone else noted, try to go another way as a British territory. They joined up pretty late in the game, considering most of the provinces had been established by 1910, but Newfoundland didn't join until the World War II-era.

It is also probably accurate that Alberta would fail to persuade BC to come with them for the simple fact that Vancouver by itself would fight tooth and nail not to join the US and that is more than enough to keep BC out of the Union. Saskatchewan is a possibility, as is Manitoba, but not high probabilities. Ontario definitely wouldn't because they work the hardest of any group of Canadians at being Canadian, or at least not Americans.

If it were to come to pass and Canada splintered, would the US also try to pick up the large Arctic territories up north or turn them loose? I should note that I think it is incredibly unlikely that any of this will come to fruition (the best chance died when Quebec staved off separation back in the 1995), but it is something to talk about, even if it might make our Canadian friends wonder why Americans are so keen to carve up their country.

[Galaxy]

What are the chances of this happening? Why is Canada pretty "spilt", and always talk of annexation?

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Will this mean the Calgary Stampeders and Edmonton Eskimos will join the NFL now?

And you think late season games in Green Bay and Buffalo would be tough. Imagine having to take a jaunt up there in late December with playoffs at stake. Ice Bowls would be rather common.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

And you think late season games in Green Bay and Buffalo would be tough. Imagine having to take a jaunt up there in late December with playoffs at stake. Ice Bowls would be rather common.

Best thing about the CFL, all-weather championship games (Grey Cup), none of this "it's too cold and snowy crap".

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Best thing about the CFL, all-weather championship games (Grey Cup), none of this "it's too cold and snowy crap".

You could argue they don't have a choice, really. The only indoor stadium in the entire league is Skydome and by the time they get to the Grey Cup, the weather in Canada is already getting nasty. (Then again, I don't remember where they held Grey Cups when they had US franchises in the league...I think it was played in Baltimore one year....)

[JeffR]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

You could argue they don't have a choice, really. The only indoor stadium in the entire league is Skydome

BC Place in Vancouver is indoors, too, and the roof to Olympic Stadium (where any Grey Cup played in Montreal would be held) can be closed.

[Karim]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What are the chances of this happening? Why is Canada pretty "spilt", and always talk of annexation?

Regionalism has always been a problem. One thing to remember is that Canada is probably the most decentralized federation in the world. Each province wields substantial power. This wasn't the intention of the Fathers of Confederation but that's how it has evolved. Ottawa's spending power enables them to continue to play a role to the chagrin of conservative Albertans.

The problem is exacerbated with our antiquated electoral system. We inherited a simple plurality system from the UK and even the UK doesn't use it anymore. What this means is that unless your votes are concentrated, they don't translate to power. There are conservatives in Ontario and liberals in Alberta but their votes never translate into seats.

As well, there's an extensive history of western grievances with Ottawa and you have continual rumblings of discontent.

The English/French duality with Quebec is too complicated for a simple discussion but that's always been a feature of Canadian politics.

As for the chances of this really happening? Pretty slim on the western separation. Quebec was pretty close in 1995 and the Liberals have only stoked the fire with the recent scandal. A cynic would say Quebec sovereignty has been effective of getting more out of Ottawa so why would they really want to separate? Very simplistic but essentially these are all talking points rather than being impending realities.

[Karim]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Will this mean the Calgary Stampeders and Edmonton Eskimos will join the NFL now?

That would piss of Toronto...

[Karim]

For those really interested, the following is a great synopsis of Alberta's place in Canada and the feelings of many Albertans.

It's a long but good read, written by Roger Gibbons, head of the Canada West Foundation and a former head of political science at the University of Calgary. I took a few courses from him when I was doing my degree there; there's no better authority on Alberta's role in the nation or the concept of 'western alienation.'

http://www.cwf.ca/abcalcwf/doc.nsf/d...bins_042805.cm

[Young Drachma]

Here are some web links on the subject.

An interesting thread, to be sure.

The Map of New Canada

Expansionist Party USA - is this for real?!

I guess it is...Their Chairman



Annexation Party of BC

Alberta Residents LeagueRepublic of AlbertaOther Links related to US/Canada union