You can forget joining the EU, members can’t have the death penalty. I think it was one of the conditions against Turkey joining.
Almost correct: staying on-track for EU membership was one of the reasons for Turkey abolishing the death penalty.
Nope, you’re doing the math wrong. The number of representatives to the House would is legally locked at 435 and there’s no reason to assume it’d increase. Ergo, most other states would lose a seat or two in the Congress when the UK was added. The only change in Electoral votes would come from the addition of new Senators. 108+435+3 = 546.
The queen would have to go. Article 4, section 4 of the Constitution:
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…”
Not that I’d want the US to join the EU, but the death penalty WAS eliminated for awhile in the US, so there is a precedent for that happening again. The sentiment is mostly in favor of the death penalty now, but there’s no reason that won’t change in the future.
I don’t mind the queen but could we elect a different royal family?
I like this idea and have argued for it in many threads – both as a good thing in and of itself, and as a step towards achieving world government via gradual evolution. Consider: The U.S. joins the EU, and pressures Canada and Japan to do the same – and Russia, once it becomes sufficiently democratic and stable. Now we have a political union – well, not quite a union, but more than a mere association like the UN – that includes nearly all of the modern, industrialized nations; a permanent state of peace and cooperation among them, plus open borders and free trade, plus a democratically elected general parliament (something NAFTA conspicuously lacks – all important policy decisions are hammered out between corporate executives and government bureaucrats). Then we adopt a common purpose: Expand the union (it would have to be renamed the International Union by this point) by gradual stages. Identify all the countries that are almost there – almost democratic and human-rights-oriented enough to be morally acceptable, and almost prosperous enough to be admitted without being an economic burden on the other Union countries; then offer those countries massive amounts of aid, out of the IU’s general budget, conditioned upon their embarking on certain political and economic reforms. Continue the process until the Union includes the whole world, even if that takes a century or more; we have to be committed to the long haul. In the end: A peaceful and prosperous world, forever (or at least, for as much time as it takes for humanity to plant a permanent, substantial, self-sustaining population in outer space, so our racial survival no longer depends entirely on the fate of this planet).
Of course, the present (or proposed) EU Constitution probably would be inadequate to the purpose. As a condition of admission, the U.S. should demand a new and democratically elected constitutional convention for the new International Union. Thus, we get to participate in renegotiating the terms of what we’re getting into. What’s more, there should be a provision for a new constitutional convention every 20 years, so every generation gets to play a role in renegotiating the social contract. More importantly, every country invited to join the union will know they’ll get the same chance at the next convention.
In the end, the Union will be, in purely electoral terms, overwhelmingly dominated by those we now class as “Third Worlders.” But the industrialized nations, getting in on the ground floor, get to put their distinctive and lasting stamp on the Union’s organization, laws, and institutional memory.
I figure China joins last.
In response to your question, x, how is this possible? In the present U.S. political climate, it isn’t. But if we start spreading the idea maybe enough Americans will see the sense in it (at least, as a superior alternative to an “American Empire”) to form a movement – not this decade, not next decade, but maybe the next. And I’m confident by that time the political consciousness of the Euros – already far enlightened compared to us benighted Yanks – will have evolved far enough that the idea will seem just plain common sense to them. 
Well, the “equalizations,” like everything else, would be up for negotiation and for periodic renegotiation. As for the Anglosphere, that idea could be folded into the International Union idea. Step 1: The U.S. joins the EU, forming a new IU under a new constitution. Step 2: The U.S. and UK jointly pressure all the Commonwealth nations to do the same, ASAP. Except for India – since at that point it would have a greater population than all the other IU nations combined, its admission should be delayed until after Latin America and most of Africa already have joined, so its preponderance of votes would no longer be so overwhelming. And, as I said above, China joins last.
If I may add a quibble to this admittedly fantastic scenario - if the UK joined the US, either as one state or as several states, Northern Ireland would almost certainly be left out. The Loyalists/unionists want to tbe British subjects, and the republicans want to be independent. Neither would be happy to suddenly be American citizens. And the US Congress, for its part , would be loathe to import that particular set of problems. So England, Wales and Scotland might become states, but only after a peace deal that resulted in Northern Ireland becoming some sort of polity that would be distinct from the old UK. Either independence, unification with the Republic of Ireland, or some sort of trusteeship. Or, I suppose that the royal family could just be transplanted to Northern Ireland and simply say that this is the sole territory of the United Kingdom, a nation that the constituent states of England, Scotland and Wales would all be exiting. That would provide de-facto independence, while the Protestants could say - truthfully - that they were still UK citizens.
Hm. We might be on to something here. Somebody call George Mitchell.
Well, I’m pretty sure that they’d make a whole lot of people really angry in the process. This is one American who’d like to keep any sentimentality towards unelected officials the hell out of my country.
Question: Is there any national or international legal precedent for something like this? I know it states in the UN Declaration of Human Rights that everyone has the right to a nationality/citizenship. Is there anything about changing someone’s citizenship, in whatever way, without their consent?
Wow … that sounds like a terrific plan; after all, groups of people who share a government would never go to war with one another. Now we just have to convince most of the world to be altruistic instead of selfish.
Very interesting responses.
From what I gather, the answer to the OP - wading through irrelevant information - is that entrance to the Commonwealth would be primarily by signing the Harare Declaration. But to have Her Majesty the Queen as head of state would involve a constitutional amendment.
Would a constitutional amendment be needed for signing the Harare Declaration? Or would it be a matter of the Congress ratifying it?
(I would like to state that this is a purely hypothetical situation, and so current citizens of the US should not become too flustered. There is no movement currently to bring the US into the Commonwealth. Yet.)
WRS
Um… you don’t have to have the Queen as head of state to be a member of the Commonwealth, do you? I’m sure some Commonwealth members are republics.
The Queen is head of the Commonwealth, certainly, but that’s a separate office.
Indeed, as owlstretchingtime explained (see post 2 above), the process for the US to enter the Commonwealth and that to have Her Majesty as head of state are two separate and quite different processes.
WRS
The US joining the Commonwealth would take more than an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You’d have to scrap the whole document and start over.
Two words to those who think England would be a bastion of the left: Margaret. Thatcher.
As owlstretchingtime explained, joining the Commonwealth does not require amending the Constitution; having Her Majesty as head of state of the US is the act that requires an amendment. The US did not need to amend the Constitution to join the UN, did it?
Just as joining the UN does not make Kofi Annan the head of state of the US, joining the Commonwealth would not make Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second the head of state of the US.
WRS
Even Thatcher was to the left of the American political spectrum.
If you wanted to join, all you would have to do is ask, and sign this:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_policy/commonwealth/imoc310-en.asp
which is the usual well meaning guff that organisations like the UN and Commonwealth produce by the yard. There’s nothing in it that would cause a problem in the USA. You can even keep the death penalty - several Commonwealth countries do.
THe only real advantage that comes with memebership is that your citizens would be able to live and work in the UK until their 26 with no visa (and if they did that it would be easy to extend it).
Um sorry, not just the UK but other commonwealth countries like the sheep shaggers as well.
if the U.S. wanted to join the EU it would have to accept and implement, without quibble, the whole existing body of EU law and Directives.