Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
The Canadian gov't cannot go into any kind of political union - NAU or other - without public approval. Remember the failed Meech Lake constitutional brouhaha where a proposal just to AMEND the Constitution got shot down by referendum?
Talk about NAU is just that - talk. It is not only impossible for this go ahead without public approval in Canada, it is even MORE impossible that it goes ahead without such in the USA. They also have a Constitution, and it can't be superseded by fiat - the legislative branch could propose it, and the executive approve it, but the courts would just throw out such a thing as unconstitutional and that would be the end of that.
If this is to be taken seriously, please explain exactly HOW the governments are going to implement this without serious restructuring of their respective constitutions, bearing in mind that such restructuring requires public input and approval - and not requires in the MORAL sense, but in the LEGAL sense.
Distrust of the government shouldn't lead one to embrace the impossible.
|
Forgive me for not taking your word on this.
There is no evidence to show Canadian or American governments are allowing for a democratic process as this moves forward.
Academic literature distributed in advance to conference participants about a common legal framework for the U.S., Canada and Mexico included proposals for a North American Court of Justice (with the authority to overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court), a North American Trade Tribunal, a North American Court of Justice, and a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights for North America, also dubbed the North American Social Charter.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff134.htm
Why would they 'talk' without placing the necessary legal aspects where they need to be?
I'll leave it up to you to provide examples of where the constitutions of these countries would in any way prevent our nations from beginning a formal union with one another.