Canada Annexation FAQ

No. Unlike the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, modern sovereignty requires the consent of the governed.

The Louisiana Purchase worked because France was the colonial sovereign over sparsely populated territory with no democratic institutions. France could sell what it owned.

Canada is a constitutional democracy with 40 million citizens. The Canadian government cannot "sell" Canada any more than the U.S. government could sell Alaska to China. There is no price tag that bypasses democratic legitimacy.

Even if every Canadian citizen voted to join the U.S. (which they overwhelmingly oppose), the process would require:

• Constitutional amendment under Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982
• Resolution of Indigenous treaty rights under Section 35
• Negotiation of terms (debt, assets, currency, legal systems)
• U.S. Congressional action to admit new state(s)

This is implausible for multiple legal and practical reasons:

UN Charter Article 2(4) prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Military invasion of Canada would be a clear violation of the foundational principle of modern international law.

NATO Article 5 states that an armed attack against one member "shall be considered an attack against them all." Both Canada and the U.S. are NATO members. A U.S. attack on Canada would trigger Article 5 obligations.

Key nuance: Article 5 does not mean automatic war. It requires each member to take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force." This could range from diplomatic condemnation to military intervention. However, the political and diplomatic consequences would be severe:

• NATO would likely collapse or expel the U.S.
• Global alliances would fundamentally realign
• Economic sanctions from allied nations
• Loss of U.S. credibility in all international institutions

Any territory acquired through military force would face non-recognition from the international community, similar to Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Individual provinces cannot unilaterally secede from Canada to join the United States. The Supreme Court of Canada's Reference re Secession of Quebec (1998) established clear principles:

• No unilateral secession: No province has a constitutional right to separate without the consent of Canada as a whole
• Negotiation required: A clear majority vote on a clear question triggers a duty to negotiate, not automatic separation
• Constitutional amendment needed: Actual separation requires amending Canada's constitution under Part V

Even if a province successfully separated from Canada through constitutional means, it would become an independent nation. The United States has no obligation to admit it, and any admission would require Congressional action.

The Clarity Act gives federal Parliament the power to determine whether a referendum question is "clear" and whether the majority is sufficient. This creates significant federal control over any secession process.

Canadian Confederation in 1867 was partly motivated by the desire to avoid absorption by the United States.

Historical context:

• 1775: American Revolutionary forces invaded Quebec, hoping Canadians would join the rebellion. They did not.
• 1812: The War of 1812 included American attempts to conquer British North America. Canadian forces repelled these invasions.
• 1860s: The end of the U.S. Civil War raised concerns about a powerful, reunified America. The Fenian raids (by Irish-American veterans) demonstrated vulnerability.
• 1867: The British North America Act united the colonies into the Dominion of Canada, creating a stronger entity capable of resisting American expansion.

The slogan "A Mari Usque Ad Mare" (From Sea to Sea) reflected the goal of a transcontinental nation that could stand independently of the United States.

20th Century: The 1911 Canadian federal election was fought partly over a proposed free trade agreement with the U.S. The Conservative Party campaigned against it as a step toward annexation. They won.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy. King Charles III is the King of Canada (a separate legal office from King of the United Kingdom). The Crown is woven throughout Canadian constitutional law.

Constitutional implications:

• The Constitution Act, 1867 established Canada as a monarchy
• Section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 requires unanimous provincial consent to abolish "the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor"
• All laws are enacted in the King's name; all court cases are styled "Rex v." (King vs.)
• Indigenous treaties are with "the Crown"

Joining the United States would require abolishing the monarchy in Canada. This triggers the unanimity requirement--all 10 provinces would need to consent. If even one province objected, the process would fail.

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9) prohibits titles of nobility. Any merger would need to reconcile these fundamentally different constitutional frameworks.

If Canada somehow joined the United States, the changes would be fundamental:

Healthcare:

• Canada has universal single-payer healthcare (Medicare)
• The U.S. has a mixed public-private system
• Canadians would likely lose universal coverage unless grandfather provisions were negotiated

Gun Laws:

• Canada has strict gun control with licensing, registration, and restrictions on handguns and "restricted" firearms
• The U.S. Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms
• Canadian gun laws would likely be preempted by federal and state constitutional provisions

Legal Systems:

• Canada uses both common law (9 provinces) and civil law (Quebec)
• Canadian criminal law is federal; American criminal law is primarily state-level
• Charter of Rights and Freedoms protections differ from U.S. Bill of Rights

Other changes:

• Currency would change to USD
• Taxation systems would completely change
• Social programs (parental leave, etc.) would shift to American norms
• Electoral system would change (no parliamentary system, no proportional representation)