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.
Go read chapter 11 of NAFTA and tell me how democratic it sounds.
I haven't done much research on this subject, but since you started the topic maybe you can enlighten me?
How can all these plans subvert or just plain ignore the constitutions of Canada, the US and Mexico? Even the Yanks can't get the ball rolling on something as trivial (in comparison) as a constitutional amendment on gay marriage, but they'll be able to sneak this through? How is that going to happen? How can all NAU happen if the people don't want it?
I can understand being cynical about government motives and shady dealings, but they don't rule at the end of a gun. Unless our democracies are completely and utterly undermined they won't be able to do this without the approval of the people.
Enlighten us. You're in law school and Con Law is part of the first year curriculum, so you should be able to run down the basics (Con Law II, if you've taken it).
The point I'm making is that our constitutional rights would be abolished under this plan, so to regurgitate the specifics of con law would be useless, if not dry, lol.
I haven't done much research on this subject, but since you started the topic maybe you can enlighten me?
How can all these plans subvert or just plain ignore the constitutions of Canada, the US and Mexico? Even the Yanks can't get the ball rolling on something as trivial (in comparison) as a constitutional amendment on gay marriage, but they'll be able to sneak this through? How is that going to happen? How can all NAU happen if the people don't want it?
I can understand being cynical about government motives and shady dealings, but they don't rule at the end of a gun. Unless our democracies are completely and utterly undermined they won't be able to do this without the approval of the people.
It will surely be discredited by others here because it's an independent source (and therefore) not peer edited, nevertheless take it for what you feel it's worth.
The point I'm making is that our constitutional rights would be abolished under this plan, so to regurgitate the specifics of con law would be useless, if not dry, lol.
You jumped on jammies for not having done research on this topic, I want to read why, in your opinion, this is going to subvert 3 countries constitutions.
Con Law is not dry, but I suspect you just dont understand it... it's not an useless exercise in futility, it's critical to your argument. So please, enlighten us on (a) why you think this plan can and will be enacted, (b) how, if at all possible, this will abolish Mexico's, Canada's and the US's constitutional rights without changing the Constitutions of each country or (c) how this plan will subvert the constitutions.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
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.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
It will surely be discredited by others here because it's an independent source (and therefore) not peer edited, nevertheless take it for what you feel it's worth.
Nowhere in that article do I see anything concrete about how this is going to take place, just a bunch of overheated rhetoric like, and I quote: "You are forced to conclude that the mainstream media is guilty of collusion with government and corporate executives and has failed to report the context of the NAU and the implications for the future of Canada."
If that doesn't sound like a conspiracy, and hence, characterize this as a typical conspiracy theory, I don't know what else I can say. Collusion between the government, mainstream media and corporate executives...
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
You jumped on jammies for not having done research on this topic, I want to read why, in your opinion, this is going to subvert 3 countries constitutions.
Con Law is not dry, but I suspect you just dont understand it... it's not an useless exercise in futility, it's critical to your argument. So please, enlighten us on (a) why you think this plan can and will be enacted, (b) how, if at all possible, this will abolish Mexico's, Canada's and the US's constitutional rights without changing the Constitutions of each country or (c) how this plan will subvert the constitutions.
I have no idea how they plan to subvert the constitutions. There's a lot of grey area behind this subject, I've put forward all the information I know. Jammies was suggesting it was impossible for this to happen without the aid of a democratic process, my response was that nothing about the process has been democratic, and therefore makes me doubt their intentions to take such measures.
My guess is that they will spin any type of a new constitution as essential to the continued safety and prosperity of North America...But who knows?
Quite simply, HHH, anything that violates the US Constitution is invalid, so Im very curious on how this conspiracy plans to enact this legitimately when it would infringe on state sovereignty immensely - something the US Constitution upholds strongly and to which I doubt 2/3rds of the States are going to be willing to allow.
But, Im only familiar with the US Constitution - once we have your analysis of the Canadian, Mexican and US constitutions, then we'll have a better idea how this is going to go down.
But dont tease us now... this better not be the product of the tail-end of a political science review class at the UofC, when the lefty prof pushed his agenda... Im expecting to understand this and either be able to dismiss it confidently or be legitimately concerned.
Edit: Just read your new post... I think this is doomsday material and not worth considering much of. Independent news sources love this type of crap... but that's all it is at this point.
Last edited by Clever_Iggy; 04-18-2008 at 11:59 PM.
The unknowns of this subject make it impossible to develop a completely concrete argument. Most people here seem confident there's too many legal fences to jump over before this could ever be implemented...I hope for all our sake this is the case. My hope in starting this thread was to raise awareness about what a growing number of people think is going on.
The unknowns of this subject make it impossible to develop a completely concrete argument. Most people here seem confident there's too many legal fences to jump over before this could ever be implemented...I hope for all our sake this is the case. My hope in starting this thread was to raise awareness about what a growing number of people think is going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotHotHeat
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.
Don't retreat now. You have done research on this and you seem pretty confident that the ball is rolling on this issue. So dont back out with the "the unknown on this subject make it impossible"... type statement. Weak sauce - especially after dismissing Jammies because he "[hadn't] done any research on this subject" and then not backing it up other than independent news "sources" and vague statements.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotHotHeat
I have no idea how they plan to subvert the constitutions. There's a lot of grey area behind this subject, I've put forward all the information I know. Jammies was suggesting it was impossible for this to happen without the aid of a democratic process, my response was that nothing about the process has been democratic, and therefore makes me doubt their intentions to take such measures.
My guess is that they will spin any type of a new constitution as essential to the continued safety and prosperity of North America...But who knows?
No, I explicitly said that either they have to do this via a democratic process or via some kind of coup where the democratic processes are subverted. You, on the other hand, have no idea how it is supposed to happen, yet are pretty sure that I am wrong.
The irony of that is almost inconceivably gargantuan.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
It will surely be discredited by others here because it's an independent source (and therefore) not peer edited, nevertheless take it for what you feel it's worth.
I'm afraid I don't feel that article is worth much and not because it isn't peer reviewed or from a mainstream media outlet but because it is essentially an editorial piece outlining what the author happens to believe is true.
Citing Stockwell Day's refusal to answer questions as proof of this plot means absolutely nothing. If a reporter told Stockwell Day to look at the ceiling then said "without looking down, what colour are your shoes?" he wouldn't be able to answer that either.
I know, I know, that's petty nitpicking on my part, but it's valid enough. If a rube like him is in on this then we have nothing to worry about.
No, I explicitly said that either they have to do this via a democratic process or via some kind of coup where the democratic processes are subverted. You, on the other hand, have no idea how it is supposed to happen, yet are pretty sure that I am wrong.
The irony of that is almost inconceivably gargantuan.
I watched the two videos you posted... I get they were on CNN, but the first one focused on Latin America harmonizing it's trade and the second one was too vague for me to take seriously. I like Dobbs, but that report really lacked any teeth.
Im still not satisfied that you have done any research on this nor do you have any idea how legitimate this process it. It amounts to a conspiracy theory... nothing more, but something I've come to expect.
I watched the two videos you posted... I get they were on CNN, but the first one focused on Latin America harmonizing it's trade and the second one was too vague for me to take seriously. I like Dobbs, but that report really lacked any teeth.
Im still not satisfied that you have done any research on this nor do you have any idea how legitimate this process it. It amounts to a conspiracy theory... nothing more, but something I've come to expect.
Look, I conceded the calls of conspiracy theory in my OP. I'm sorry I can't analyze and put forward a bulletproof plan similar to what the SPP has in motion. If you truly feel sure about the fact that something such as this would never go through, then I guess we have nothing to worry about.
Garbage. Random clips (including the ever popular "Zeitgest video", completely unidentifiable clips of a British (part of the EU?) man talking vaguely and old CNN and FAUX news clips that substantiate little).
Garbage. Random clips (including the ever popular "Zeitgest video", completely unidentifiable clips of a British (part of the EU?) man talking vaguely and old CNN and FAUX news clips that substantiate little).
That video is 11 minutes long, and you posted this 3 minutes after I posted it.
