[dvwjr]

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

[donmeaker]

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!

[djf]

TY! Been drivin me nuts all day trying to remember where it was... I reed two much!