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.?????

Well, here's a go for how the US might join -

While many groups of people in the US may fight with one another, they
all
think that they are in the right, and for many of them there could still
be
residual Pro-US constitutional idealism.

So effectively you could have several regions of the fractured US all
claiming to be the legitimate US - it's eveyone else that's wrong

Let's imagine washington D.C. gets nuked- (of all the cities to get
wasted
in a US civil war, I can't shake the feeling that D.C. is first on many
people's lists.)  suddenly the well-defined Federal Govt is effectively
gone.  In the resulting power vacuum, each of the several warring
regions
then recreates a 'federal' govt created in part from the various local
members of the former federal govt, and based on their interpretation of
how the US govt 'should' work. This is a time for revisionist thinking
to
'fix' what was broken previously, of course no one agrees on what was
broken.  With all the introduced changes and hostilities, recombination
is
greatly impeded.  Instead of the various 'baby-feds' recombining into a
cohesive govt body, they are all doing their own thing for a while.  So
at
one time you have 3-4 groups in the US each claiming to be the US
federal
govt. - At this point the southeast states throw their hands up in
disgust
and give up the pretext of the US being 'UNITED'.  They rename
themselves
the Confederate States of America (or just the Confederacy) - they never
really accepted the outcome of the first civil war, anyway.

Anyone remember the Shattered Imperium?

As things begin to settle down (with the assistance of the UK and
Canada,
The various portions groups enter the NAC under their Mini-nation guise
-
thus leading to the Nation-states that have been discussed previously.

Note that as time passes, lots of the anomisity dies down and the
Nation-states of the Former US work to iron out many of their
difficulties
and differences.  So the differences between 'national constitutions'
within the former US are not as great as when the NAC was founded - and
referring to the USA almost means something again.

Jared Noble