> “The problem is that it’s not a treaty; that’s an American law,” Sai said. “The United States could no more annex a foreign country by passing a law than it could pass the law today for the Congress to annex Canada. It has no effect beyond the borders of the United States.”
I'm actually not sure? Prima facie, I think it would in fact be legal for Congress to conquer and annex Canada. A bad idea. But the constitution does not seem to prohibit it.
Anyway, while the premise of this article is cute, it forgets something about the right to self-determination. It includes the right to choose "incorrectly". In practice, as things currently stand, if you gave the population of Hawaii the vote on this, they'd vote to join the United States. So speaking of an independent nation of Hawaii, as if it would ever exist is essentially fantasy.
Here in Canada, provinces have a clear legal right of secession from federation; they're sovereign and they may exercise that sovereignty. The biggest reason none have actually done so, I think, is that it would simply be a massive headache for little clear purpose.
> “The problem is that it’s not a treaty; that’s an American law,” Sai said. “The United States could no more annex a foreign country by passing a law than it could pass the law today for the Congress to annex Canada. It has no effect beyond the borders of the United States.”
I'm actually not sure? Prima facie, I think it would in fact be legal for Congress to conquer and annex Canada. A bad idea. But the constitution does not seem to prohibit it.
It would be legal within the US where the governing law is the constitution. It would not be legal outside if the US. Which is the point the original article was making.
Out of the 140,744 total voters, 132,773 voted for Hawaii to become a US state. How can you argue that it shouldn't be one, then, without also arguing against the right to self-determination?
3 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 19.9 ms ] threadI'm actually not sure? Prima facie, I think it would in fact be legal for Congress to conquer and annex Canada. A bad idea. But the constitution does not seem to prohibit it.
Anyway, while the premise of this article is cute, it forgets something about the right to self-determination. It includes the right to choose "incorrectly". In practice, as things currently stand, if you gave the population of Hawaii the vote on this, they'd vote to join the United States. So speaking of an independent nation of Hawaii, as if it would ever exist is essentially fantasy.
Here in Canada, provinces have a clear legal right of secession from federation; they're sovereign and they may exercise that sovereignty. The biggest reason none have actually done so, I think, is that it would simply be a massive headache for little clear purpose.
It would be legal within the US where the governing law is the constitution. It would not be legal outside if the US. Which is the point the original article was making.