Re: [OT] Liberals was: Personal hoody-hoo

On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Michael Llaneza wrote:

> It makes pefect sense to me. The 1st Ammendment is What. The 2nd is
How. 
> Freedom, and the right to protect it.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc reasoning here. Having guns != freedom.
Freedom
does not nessecarily = having guns. But that's a flamewar for another
day.

> OBGZG-L: What sort of constitution does the NAC operate under ?

Probably a very messy one!

The UK has no 'Constitution' in the sense of a single over-arcing
document.

Canada has a Constitution & Bill of Rights, with references to a number
of
other documents.

The US has a Constitution, of course, but the NAC is founded after the
*collapse* of the republic in the 2nd Civil War. (Which was, if you read
some of the canon bits, actually a *nuclear* civil war! Florida nuking
North Dakota? Something like that. It's what prompted the US military to
take over & ask for stabilization help from the UK & Canada, in the
canon
timelines.)

An over-arcing NAC document (let's call it the Articles of
Confederation,
just to differentiate btwn that & various Constitutions...) would
probably
have some sort of Bill of Rights, and then a lot of language about
regional differences!

We've also got to accomodate Central/South America - after 150+ years,
they're probably fully integrated into the rest of the NAC.

I'm thinking that the slightly more British model (of a gradually
accumulated 'constitution') would be more flexible for something as
large
& varied as the NAC. Some things (Bill of Rights, govt duties at various
levels) would be hardwired, and the rest allowed to evolve from an
amalgamation of everyone's past practice.

Like I said, incredibly messy. The constitutional lawyers would be busy
people!

Brian - yh728@victoria.tc.ca -
- http://wind.prohosting.com/~warbard/games.html -