Have you ever looked at a Canadian Conservative Party Platform? On some things they're further to the right than American Republicans. Canadians are in a completely different political context than American counterparts and there are no direct equivalencies. Canada is a large petroleum exporter and petroleum producing companies are much more influential there than in most of the U.S. Canadians may share more of a cultural affinity with contemporary Democrats, but their issues are nowhere near the same and that affinity would be gone if they had to come up with a common platform. Yes, there'd probably be a little less evangelicalism in politics overall (again, that's more the political culture than the politics itself).

Again though, this is all assuming that an annexed Canada would be granted statehood in the Union, and there's no precedent for that happening when the U.S. government decides to annex a territory without sufficient support already in place. (Out of 50 current states, 31 were territories first. The thirteen colonies, Vermont, Kentucky (started off as southwestern Virginia, i.e., one of the 13 colonies), Maine (split off from Massachusetts in 1820, i.e., one of the 13 colonies), Texas (invaded by Americans that fought to keep it independent from Spain first, and then from México, established a government similar in form and principle to other state governments, and uniquely annexed by treaty), California (Compromise of 1850, and again with a sudden influx of Americans establishing a government similar to other state governments).)

Canada, even in this bizarre scenario, meets none of those criteria. Were it annexed, it would likely be an unorganized (Congress not creating a new government for it; not even a non-voting delegate sent to Congress) unincorporated (limited application of U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights) territory.

However, even should Palin be elected in 2012, that nightmare scenario for Canada is just nonsense.

No, Anonymous Coward, your grand pronouncements aside, property, in American law, is grounded on the right to exclude.

See:
Rakas v. Illinois 429 US 128 (1978)
Kaisner Aetna v. United States 444 US 164 (1979)
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp 258 US 419 (1982)
Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n 483 US 825 (1987)
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins 447 US 74 (1980)
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM 353 US 232 (1957)
Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 US 374 (1994)
Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy 367 US 888 (1961)
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Corp. 467 US 986 (1984)

(This list could go on almost forever.)

<sarcasm>Yes, you're absolutely right: nearly a millennium of common law development has suddenly been shaken by your grand pronouncement.</sarcasm>

Sorry, but as this is about American property law, which for the U.S. Supreme Court, has centered on that attribute that the owner has the right to exclude others (especially “the public”), and that that is the most definitive characteristic of private property. Without that right, it is not property.

An easement is property; it is not a refutation of it. That's like saying that the existence of debt means there's no such thing as money.

Well, no: as that article states:

An easement is the right to use the real property of another without possessing it. Easements are helpful for providing pathways across two or more pieces of property or allowing an individual to fish in a privately owned pond. An easement is considered as a property right in itself at common law and is still treated as a type of property in most jurisdictions.

An easement is a specific grant of a limited use right by a (present or historical) property-owner (for some other consideration); easements are specific and do not allow for universal access to one's property. Easements are a property right, not some contravention of property rights.

That is ridiculously absurd. There are probably a few municipalities with rules like that in the U.S., but there is certainly no federal prohibition on fences of any given height (or any federal law relating to zoning), but in areas where a private driveway is likely to be mistaken for a road (i.e., out in the sticks), zoning is not generally an issue. They probably could have had a 12-foot fence if they had wanted it and saved the lawyer's fee.

Normally yes, but this was in a private driveway (that Googlers probably didn't realize when they went down it).

Then there's no case. Problem solved.

No, that's exactly what private property means.

Yes, I can. Convenient that no one even suggested that, though.

LOL, no. Our public education was created to decatholicize the children of immigrants.

Sorry, but no. What puts a country on a map is that it's there. It is about geography. A remote history has nothing to do with the people living there now, and for all the negative coverage Florida has had in the European press, it is ridiculous to be ignorant to its location.

Except that that also rebrands progressivism to mean anti-progressive or conservative (in the classical sense).

I don't know what species you are, but when humans masturbate, the ejaculate does not contain fetuses.

I don't see how not voting is somehow “validated” by running for office (or needing “validation” for that matter). Running for office and not voting is just stupid (and I make no excuses for that).

Because someone online purporting that one should feel guilty about not doing something is patronizing and irritating. How does it remove guilt?

I have a right to worship a lint roller dipped in macaroni and cheese and to vote. As the productivity of the latter approaches the former, the likelihood of me voting decreases.