Quote:
Originally Posted by HotHotHeat
Great logic. War plans are now the same as economic and security integration?
No offense, but you're wasting your words attempting to explain the legitimacy of US and Canadian constitutional law. You obviously haven't done any research on this subject, so I'll leave you be.
|
Oh, that's good technique: "You don't know what you're talking about, but I can't actually explain why, just trust me on this because I KNOW."
There's someone here who doesn't understand the basics of constitutional law, but I'm pretty sure it isn't me. If I'm wrong, please explain to me the exact mechanism by which this NAU is going to be implemented - not in vague words like "undemocratic processes" (see your original post), but in a step by step manner where you explicitly set forth how this union will take place without amendments to the constitutions in question, and without public input.
Further, the war plans argument is an analogy, not an equivalence. It is
analogous to argue that the US intends to invade Canada because they have a plan on how to do so, as it is to argue that the US plans to integrate politically with Canada because they have a plan on how to do so. Your misinterpretation that I think they are the same thing indicates that you do not understand my argument at all.
If you're in an especially expansive mood, you can also explain how I misunderstand the legitimacy of US and Canadian constitution law. From rereading my commentary, all I have claimed is that our governments derive their legitimacy from these documents, that these documents cannot be amended without due process, and that the NAU would necessarily involve amendment of these documents. Again, specific arguments against these points is welcome, but vague claims of my "not doing any research on the subject" aren't very convincing.