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

<snip>
>
>how about this, then. currently (in the uk), the legislature is
bicameral:
>there is the house of commons and the house of lords. the nac is the
same,
>but rather than once house of commons there are half a dozen, one in
each
>state. there is still only one house of lords. one way of looking at
this
>is to think of each state being bicameral, but having a shared upper 
>house. it neatly ties together the state and confederate governments.
>
>the organisation of each state varies. in the uk, there are four
countries
>(england, scotland, wales, ulster/ireland), divided into counties and
>parishes. in new england, there are provinces and counties. in the
>southern confederacy, there are states (georgia, alabama, etc) and
>municipalities. it's subtly different everywhere. assimilate diversity!
>

<snip>

>this brings us back to a devate over the nature of the NAC. some see it
as
>a single superstate, like a USA++. i (and one or two others) do not - i
>see it as a collection of semi-autonomous states, very much like the
EU.
>

I agree here.  I see the NAC as a collection of semi-autonomous states,
each with a separate internal system.  The overall government would have
a
very limited set of responsibilities:  Foreign affairs and the military,
Foreign Trade, the strategic parts of resource management, Monetary
Policy
(particularly in relation to foreign trade), maybe inter-state relations
(between the member bits of the NAC), the NAC Supreme Court (though this
would obviously not be part of the legislative or executive brances of
the
NAC gov't), and some kind of "universal" rights system.

Everything else would be run by the various "states" - though the NAC
gov't
might make recommendations for basic standards for things like health
care,
education, etc.

Each "state" would have its own internal system of governance, with a
parliament of some kind, etc.  I'm not sure that I like the idea of
having
one "commons" in each state, but only one "Lords" for the whole NAC. 
The
NAC gov't and the "states'" governments would have separate
responsibilities, and should not be connected like this.  There should
be,
as there are in Canada and the US, completely separate legislature
systems.

The NAC legislature could be made up of members who are directly
elected,
could have members who are appointed by the states' legislatures or
perhaps
elected by the states' legislatures to represent that state, or perhaps
are
appointed by the crown as directed by the states' legislatures.  I'd
like
to see a combination system, to account for differences in population -
so
each state gets a basic number of seats, and then a variable number
beyond
that depending on population (the more people, the more seats).  Perhaps
some of the seats are appointed and some elected.  This would allow
appointed Lords, but still give the population some feeling of
controlling
their destiny by being able to vote for some part of the assembly.

Maybe there's a House of Lords above the Legislature.  You could have
the
Legislature made up of members elected directly, and then the Lords made
up
of "Lords" who are appointed by the crown after advisement by the
states'
governments.  

Anyway - just a couple of thoughts...

<snip>

>the EU has the treaties of rome and maastricht. the UK has the act of
>union and the parliament act. these things do not require a single
>constitution.

<snip>

>
>absolutely. but i don't think this requires a single constitution. the
UK
>doesn't have one, and it has been a world leader in making military,
>political and social decisions for a long time.
>

But what's wrong with a constitution?  If you were starting a new
country
from scratch, would you want one with a complex system of
unwritten-but-agreed-upon traditions and a variety of acts, or one with
a
single written document that sets out all the basic rules?  There is
lots
of character in the way the UK works itself, and yes the UK has been a
world leader for a long time.  So has the US, with a written
constitution
that is, at it's heart, a simple document.  So why not pick the simpler
of
the two.

Adrian