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

> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Jared E Noble wrote:

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

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.

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