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

><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:
>
<SNIP>

I also agree.  But as some think of the NAC as USA++, Others are
thinking
UK++.  I don't know that either really fit the need.

><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.

I definately think there should be a constitution for the NAC - maybe
not
for England - they can continue with 'a complex system of
unwritten-but-agreed-upon traditions and a variety of acts'
(CSUBAUT&VA),
but regardless of how war-torn the US is, I can't see them joining a new
Governmental system without knowing what's going on with it.  Besides,
the
UK achieved its CSUBAUT&VA over centuries of political evolution - The
NAC
is a new creation -though admittedly some older vestiges were retained.

If there is anything that 200 years of Used-car salesmen and lawyers
have
taught the US, it's get the terms spelled out up front -though some
ignore
that advice too <sigh>.

Jared