Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure

<snip>

>
> the EU
>> has the treaties of Rome and Maastricht, but much of it has been
defined
>> in other treaties, directives, agreements, etc. i suppose when i say
'no
>> constitution' i mean 'no single written constitution'. i think the
nac
>> 'constitution' should be made up of the Anglo-American agreement
which
>> invited britain in after ACW2, the Anglo-Canadian treaty, the Treaty
of
>> Oahu, the Cheyenne Proclaimation, the Governance Act, the Parliament
Act,
>> etc. things are clear, but there is no single piece of paper at the
root.
>
>That's painful. A joint consitution would be far better solution. It 
>would enshrine your personal basic rights and responsiblities to the 
>state. It would define the relationships between member states, and 
>the methods of common governance. 

And this follows the direction we see in some countries now.  Just as
the
States in the US have a Constitution which provides for much of the law
in
the state while collectively they are part of the US Constitution - so
we
could apply this one step higher.  State constitution (or Provincial
Acts
for those of us not in the US), "federal" constitution for bits of the
NAC
like Canada which joined as complete countries, and the NAC
constitution.
I think there would have to be some kind of single document - would be a
nightmare otherwise.  

Problem - what about areas that join the NAC as a country, ie Canada,
and
areas that join the NAC not as a country, such as the various bits of
the
US that aren't controlled by the residual US government after the US
civil
war.  I figure that when the Brit/Can forces help stop the war, the bits
that were not under the control of the Federal Government wouldn't have
come back under the control of the Federal Gov't.  They were enemies,
after
all - hence the war.  If the intervention by Brit/Can forces was to help
the Federal Gov't regain its territories, they would really have been
helping the US Government win it's Civil War militarily.  I think the
Brit/Can forces would arrive, help implement a peace agreement to stop
the
fighting, but in a more impartial way - like peacekeepers, and then the
various bits of the US would join the new NAC individually.   If this
happens, then you have different levels of law in the various founding
parts of the NAC.  Quebec, UK, Canada have "national" level law.  So
does
the bits of the US still working under the US Constitution.  The other
bits
of the US don't have "national" level law, unless they declared
themselves
countries and wrote something.	 SO - does the NAC constitution provide
the
extra law necessary to bring each area up to the same status, or maybe
as
part of the agreement to join the NAC an area has to have its legal
codes
cover certain areas, etc.?????

>I don't think so. I don't think the NAC is the EU. I don't think it 
>is a strictly economic union. And if it must make military, 
>political, and social decisions, fundamental rights and rules of how 
>to govern must exist across the board. Otherwise it becomes 
>administratively to complex and dies under its own administrivia and 
>bureaucratica.
> 

Yes!