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

On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Jared E Noble wrote:
> >>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:
> I also agree.

thanks for the loan of those orbitak mind control lasers, john x. soon,
my
zombie legions will rule the world :-)!

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

perceptive point. i suppose someone pushed nac=usa++ so i pushed back.
this is a key failing of mine ...

> >>absolutely. but i don't think this requires a single constitution.
> >But what's wrong with a constitution?
> I definately think there should be a constitution for the NAC

okay, i give in. reason triumphs over blind jingoism once more. this
just
in from Finney's 'History of the Confederation':

<blockquote>
After weeks of intense, extensive and sometimes passionate debate, the
British delegate to the treaty convention caved in and accepted the
Canadian-led demand for a formal constitution for the Anglian
Confederation. This requirement was subsequently expressed in article
seven of the Niagara treaty of 2056. This has often been hailed as a
great step forward in consolidating the Confederation, in that it
provided
a common framework within which all the disparate peoples could work
together. However, certain obstinate historians continue to maintain
that
the inflexibility introduced by the written constitution was a major
cause
of the internal crises of the 2080s. This is, however, not taken
seriously
by anyone important.
</blockquote>

Tom