Why would "North American Union" even be a secret evil conspiracy?

[1337m4n]

Maybe it's just me, but I think a politician could reasonably sell the idea of a "North American Union" to the public using legitimate arguments. Heck, I myself think there might be a number of advantages to such an idea.

So I have two questions:

1) Why do the supposed proponents of a North American Union even NEED a secret conspiracy? Why can't they just fight for it openly like for any other political measure?

2) What is so inherently bad about the idea of a North American Union, that you can't even put forth legitimate arguments in favor of the idea without CTists accusing you of being "one of THEM"?

[Brainster]

Because it would mean the USA would become Mexico.

Seriously, I don't know anybody in the US who thinks that a merger with Canada and Mexico would be a good thing.

[gtc]

Maybe it's just me, but I think a politician could reasonably sell the idea of a "North American Union" to the public using legitimate arguments. Heck, I myself think there might be a number of advantages to such an idea.

So I have two questions:

1) Why do the supposed proponents of a North American Union even NEED a secret conspiracy? Why can't they just fight for it openly like for any other political measure?

2) What is so inherently bad about the idea of a North American Union, that you can't even put forth legitimate arguments in favor of the idea without CTists accusing you of being "one of THEM"?

I feel the same way about the NAFTA highway (which is being discussed in another thread). A discussion of the pros and cons of increased co-operation between the nations (even a merger) should be possible; although I understand there is no desire for such a merger to take place.

[Gazpacho]

As far as I can tell, some people are just really hung up on equating national sovereignty with hostile foreign relations, much like the government of North Korea does. Good relations with Mexico, then, means no more US and no more Anglo-American system of laws and government.

Also, dey tuck ar jarbs.

[gtc]

Because it would mean the USA would become Mexico.

Seriously, I don't know anybody in the US who thinks that a merger with Canada and Mexico would be a good thing.

What about a merger with Canada? Do you fancy adding another 10 stars to the flag?

Wait a second, did Obama let something slip when he mentioned 57 states? Could he be planning to admit British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Foundland and the Maritimes as seven new states?Would this ensure a Democrat as a President for the next twenty years?

Is he planning to sell Quebec to the EU?

[fullflavormenthol]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UvUmONp20s

An opinion on those Canadians........

[Rika]

Would the EU take Quebec?

[LashL]

What about a merger with Canada? Do you fancy adding another 10 stars to the[flag?

It will never happen in a thousand years. And, by the way, it's 13, not 10 - the territories count, sorta kinda (insert sarcasm smiley here), after all. :)

[LashL]

Would the EU take Quebec?

Nobody wants Quebec. Canada, alas, is stuck with it.

[Travis]

My suspicion is that Xenophobia and latent racism is behind the fear of a NAU. Merging with those overly polite Canadians and job-stealing Mexicans just freaks paranoid bigots out.

Also it would be one more step towards a World Government which is also "bad" for reasons that are never explained.

[Tbone]

Nobody wants Quebec. Canada, alas, is stuck with it.

Even half of Quebec doesn't want the other half.

[JonathanClement]

My suspicion is that Xenophobia and latent racism is behind the fear of a NAU. Merging with those overly polite Canadians and job-stealing Mexicans just freaks paranoid bigots out.

Also it would be one more step towards a World Government which is also "bad" for reasons that are never explained.

I think it's because they think "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", however, it wouldn't be like that. Oh, and let's not forget that fictitious conversion between Aron Russo and Nick Rockerfeller where Nick supposedly confesses about "THE CHIPZ!!!!!!!111 ZOMG!!!!111"

[Gazpacho]

Also it would be one more step towards a World Government which is also "bad" for reasons that are never explained.
It isn't? A union is one thing, a government quite another. I like my Anglo-American laws & politics very much, thanks, and don't want them to be subject to review by e.g. China, under any terms.

[eromitlab]

Obviously, a secret conspiracy is needed to bring about the North American Union because it's just so unspeakably evil and bad that it can't be fought for on a level playing field... the deck has to be stacked in secret to bring it about against the will of proud and patriotic Americans who don't need to be told why it's bad and evil to know it's bad and evil and their secret machinations must be stopped.

Or it could be because someone with a terribly skewed agenda just told them it's bad without explaining why and they don't know any better than to repeat the talking points without questioning them.

[gtc]

Would the EU take Quebec?

Is the EU not EVIL*? Are the Quebecois not EVIL*? Obviously the EU is just itching to let them join.

It will never happen in a thousand years. And, by the way, it's 13, not 10 - the territories count, sorta kinda (insert sarcasm smiley here), after all. :)

Fie! Since when do territories get stars on the US flag?

Even half of Quebec doesn't want the other half.

It's a ruse, a ruse I tell you.



*You can tell they are evil by their government supported healthcare systems.

[LukeB]

Evil yes, but we also have standards.

[Dave Rogers]

Because it would mean the USA would become Mexico.

And yet, somehow, England hasn't become France.

Dave

[moon1969]

Simple. Because CT people think that it is the New World Order. Everything that promotes globalization and focuses on building a more unified world, is a apart of the New World Order. I bet CT people are happy that Ireland voted no to the EU. CT people don"t believe in global warming. And they probaly hate the UN. New world ouder will get them.

[WildCat]

What about a merger with Canada? Do you fancy adding another 10 stars to the flag?

Wait a second, did Obama let something slip when he mentioned 57 states? Could he be planning to admit British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Foundland and the Maritimes as seven new states?Would this ensure a Democrat as a President for the next twenty years?

Is he planning to sell Quebec to the EU?
Hey, you totally copied me (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3696575#post3696575)!

And maybe REO Speedwagon too. :p

[Apollo20]

I think Canada should apologize for being such dorks in 1812 and should ask to join the US.

[Praktik]

Nobody wants Quebec. Canada, alas, is stuck with it.

Dude, if you're saying you don't want a province filled with sexy-accented hotties who know what they want, then - well... there's no hope for you..;)

PS: quebec girls like anglophones that try to speak french with horrible accents, its as cute to them as their accents are to us... little tip for you..;)

[Disbelief]

Dude, if you're saying you don't want a province filled with sexy-accented hotties who know what they want, then - well... there's no hope for you..;)

PS: quebec girls like anglophones that try to speak french with horrible accents, its as cute to them as their accents are to us... little tip for you..;)

I don't think she is interested in that.

[Praktik]

I don't think she is interested in that.

Well hey, there's something in French genes that do not only benefit the women... which lady doesn't want to be swept off her feet by a sauve debonnair?

[aggle-rithm]

Because it would mean the USA would become Mexico.

Seriously, I don't know anybody in the US who thinks that a merger with Canada and Mexico would be a good thing.

Here in Texas, the merger is already well underway.

I guess I can't complain. After all, WE took the land from THEM.

[aggle-rithm]

I think Canada should apologize for being such dorks in 1812 and should ask to join the US.

You mean when we invaded them, and they didn't cooperate?

Canada should take a cue from Denmark or France. Now, THOSE guys know how to fold in the face of an invasion!

[dudalb]

It isn't? A union is one thing, a government quite another. I like my Anglo-American laws & politics very much, thanks, and don't want them to be subject to review by e.g. China, under any terms.


The problem is when does a Union become a Government. They are having quite a lot of problems in Europe over this issue.

[GreNME]

My suspicion is that Xenophobia and latent racism is behind the fear of a NAU. Merging with those overly polite Canadians and job-stealing Mexicans just freaks paranoid bigots out.

Also it would be one more step towards a World Government which is also "bad" for reasons that are never explained.

I agree that this is the root of the attitude. Xenophobia (and, to a degree, latent racism) tends to be at the heart of most isolationist attitudes, not just the neo-isolationist attitudes that were once popular in the US and are still popular among the conspiracy theorist crowd.

Here in Texas, the merger is already well underway.

I guess I can't complain. After all, WE took the land from THEM.

I'd agree with that statement, but considering that I'm a transplanted Yankee living in TX (DFW) I doubt my opinion counts for much. :)

I think Canada should apologize for being such dorks in 1812 and should ask to join the US.

You mean apologize for kicking our tails and burning down our capital?

In all seriousness, though, for economic reasons it's in the best interests for Canada and the US to remain partners like we already are as opposed to merging, because a merger at this time wouldn't do either economy any good. That's what makes me laugh so much about the claims of an NAU-- the US and Canada are way more wealthy and powerful as sovereign entities, so people who think it's even plausible that the US or Canada would agree to something like that are stark raving mad.

Now Mexico, on the other hand, has some possibility of having a financial gain in a union if looked at in the long term (like 100 years), but in short term (10-20 years) it would be sufficiently costly that any argument in favor of it would be stopped short in the US. On top of that, I don't know how many people know any Mexicans very well, but I would be very careful about stirring the seeds of (sovereign) nationalism. It's on par with American nationalism in my opinion, so I'm fairly sure such a topic would be a non-starter in Mexico as much as it would be in the US.

[~enigma~]

The problem is when does a Union become a Government.
Not sure but I know the Longshoremen in NYC would like to know.

[Apollo20]

Aggle-rithm:

Canada was a British colony back in 1812; it has a long tradition of being subservient to super-powers.

Now it's the US that runs the show! Meet the new boss; same as the old boss...........

Canada got spanked by the US for not sending troops to Iraq so we made up for it by sending troops to be killed in Afghanistan. Harper calls that: "Meeting our NATO committments". I call it: "Doing America's bidding".

The US sees Canada as a convenient energy/resource provider that's rich in oil, gas, uranium, water, etc. Now Harper has agreed to take US nuclear waste and bury it in Canada.... after all it was OUR uranium to begin with.

I say: Let's unite and share the wealth, ...... and the waste!

[T.A.M.]

I think most paranoids fear that the super highway and union are simply a "foot in the door" to a non-hostile takeover of Canada by the USA.

Last I checked, France was not part of England, or vice versa, so I do not buy it, but you see from their pov, the (ir)rationale.

TAM:)

[theprestige]

And yet, somehow, England hasn't become France.

Dave
Tell that to the Saxons. :D

[Disbelief]

On top of that, I don't know how many people know any Mexicans very well, but I would be very careful about stirring the seeds of (sovereign) nationalism. It's on par with American nationalism in my opinion, so I'm fairly sure such a topic would be a non-starter in Mexico as much as it would be in the US.

I lived in MX for nearly three years, and I whole-heartedly agree. There may be a few small concentrations of people who would want to be part of the US, but the vast majority love MX.

[Minadin]

Nobody in this proposed merger wants the problems associated with their neighbor to the south. Seriously. Mexico spits on Guatemala. It's not racist or xenophobic, it's all based on latitudinalism.

[stilicho]

Aggle-rithm:

Canada was a British colony back in 1812; it has a long tradition of being subservient to super-powers.

Now it's the US that runs the show! Meet the new boss; same as the old boss...........

Canada got spanked by the US for not sending troops to Iraq so we made up for it by sending troops to be killed in Afghanistan. Harper calls that: "Meeting our NATO committments". I call it: "Doing America's bidding".

The US sees Canada as a convenient energy/resource provider that's rich in oil, gas, uranium, water, etc. Now Harper has agreed to take US nuclear waste and bury it in Canada.... after all it was OUR uranium to begin with.

I say: Let's unite and share the wealth, ...... and the waste!

We've been patrolling the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea since Gulf I, Apollo20. The fact is we couldn't send ground troops to Iraq without enlisting the help of Ukraine's air force. We simply don't have the capacity to airlift divisions all over the world as the USA does. It's a stretch to support our NATO commitment in Afghanistan but we've been doing it for almost seven years now.

As for NAU, there's about zero per cent support for such a thing here in Canada and any politician--even in Alberta--who proposed it would be slitting the wrists of their career.

[Jontg]

And as usual, any political union of any kind (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=365770) is a sign of the end.

[JonathanClement]

And as usual, any political union of any kind (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=365770) is a sign of the end.

*sigh* More paranoid nonsense... OH NOES! A SOUTH AMERICAN UNION!!! ZOMG THAT MEANS RFID CHIPS ARE GONNA BE PUT IN OUR HANDS!!!!!!!!!!!11111111ONEONEONE

[Rika]

I think a South American Union might even be helpful. But.. I can't say a North American Council would be bad. At least then everyone would hear it before we ignored each other.

[stilicho]

And as usual, any political union of any kind (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=365770) is a sign of the end.

From your link: "George Orwell's 1984 gets closer and closer."

Perhaps metaphorically. Chronologically, though, it's receding into the past by the minute.

[David Swidler]

From your link: "George Orwell's 1984 gets closer and closer."

Perhaps metaphorically. Chronologically, though, it's receding into the past by the minute.

He's using the Muslim calendar, obviously. As any CTist worth his salt must.

[Chaos]

And yet, somehow, England hasn't become France.

Dave

We´ll get to that. We´re not yet finished turning Sweden into Germany. :D

[theprestige]

From your link: "George Orwell's 1984 gets closer and closer."

Perhaps metaphorically. Chronologically, though, it's receding into the past by the minute.
I think metaphorically it's Aldous Huxley's Brave New World that's looming up ahead. 1984 is obsolete.

[1337m4n]

1984 is perhaps the most widely used non-argument there is.

[fitzgibbon]

I think Canada should apologize for being such dorks in 1812 and should ask to join the US.

Apollo,

Try reading-up on your War of 1812 history. Google Fort Michilimackinaw, Detroit, Crysler's Far, Stoney Creek, Lundy's Lane, Bloody Boys, just for starters.

[Jontg]

I think metaphorically it's Aldous Huxley's Brave New World that's looming up ahead. 1984 is obsolete.

How do you figure that first bit?

[Travis]

Apollo,

Try reading-up on your War of 1812 history. Google Fort Michilimackinaw, Detroit, Crysler's Far, Stoney Creek, Lundy's Lane, Bloody Boys, just for starters.

Exactly, Canada proved to be effective at not being invaded and are therefore "dorks."

[Cuddles]

The problem is when does a Union become a Government. They are having quite a lot of problems in Europe over this issue.

It's not really that that is the problem in Europe, it's more that people keep trying to sneak in one thing while claiming it's something else, and often don't actually give the people any chance to discuss or object.

The way I see it, some kind of world government is not only a good thing, it is inevitable and when it comes down to it, already exists. Just think about the levels that already exist, and must exist, in governing a country. At the smallest scale you have town councils who look after local roads, collect rubbish and so on. At one time that was all that was needed. With better transportation and communication things increased to a larger scale with what are now counties covering many different towns, and a bigger council to coordinate projects at this larger level.

Above this you have regions, or whatever you want to call them, such as Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. They're not all the same, but they each control various aspects of the whole region, and coordinate and regulate things at the county level, but without actively taking part in the little details. And over this you have countries, which control policy for several regions. All this is the result of better transport and communication, which has led to people needing coordination and control over larger areas.

Of course, the details vary in different places, largely due to history. Some countries may be the equivalent of a small region somewhere else, while a country like the USA is effectively a grouping of several countries. Which neatly brings us to the next level up. The USA, EU, USSR, NAFTA, NATO, OPEC and whatever else are just a natural progression. Some, like the USA already exist as a full government. Others, like the EU, provide guidelines and some structure, but are not at the same level of integration. Maybe they never will be. The point is that such things already exist.

Above all there is the world government. Many people don't seem to notice, but it is already there. International law, the Geneva convention, the International Declaration of Human Rights, and many more. What, exactly, is so bad about these things? The thing is, a world government, NAFTA or whatever does not mean a government in the sense of the parliament of a country. It simply means the natural progression of government going from the smallest town council up to worldwide treaties. There is no reason for this to stop at the arbitrary point we label "country", especially since this is already very obviously not the case. The point is, the government at different levels does different things. The EU or a world government aren't going to tell your local town where to build its roads, just as your town council isn't going to try to mediate international conflicts. They all have their places, and as globalisation becomes more complete, the role of global government will become much clearer.

The main problem people seem to have is that we have only fairly recently achieved true globalisation, and it takes a fair amount of time between the innovations that allow (or require) a higher level of government and that government actually establishing itself. People generally dislike change, especially change that they don't understand, and when it comes down to it no-one really understands what the consequences of globalisation will really be. This makes it very easy for people to say that it is a bad thing, and then they have to search around to try to find a "because...". Conspiracy is a good angle because it explains why it is bad and why they don't understand it all in one neat little package (using "neat" to mean "horribly complex mess involving hundreds of thousands of people and several impossibilities").

The message here is that government is not a bad thing. It is necessary, and it evolves to fill the needs. What would war be like without agreements about PoWs? What do we do with people whose crimes transcend any single country? What about places like Antarctica, the Arctic, the Moon, where there are no countries? No-one wants a president of the world, but we do need some kind of government at that level, and we're well on the way to getting it, whether people like it or not.

[hamelekim]

I think metaphorically it's Aldous Huxley's Brave New World that's looming up ahead. 1984 is obsolete.

If you look at England right now you can see 1984 well under way. From the Camera's on every corner, to the new law they want to pass to vett anyone who hugs or kisses a child in public. Doesn't matter if you are their parent or not. England is quickly becoming the ultimate nanny state. In some ways China is still in the lead, but that is changing and eventually England will overtake China.

That said, I do believe that Brave New World is the future. If you look at the transhumanist movement you can see where the technology is headed. Any way you look at it, the future isn't bright. We are headed for dark times with complete government control over peoples lives, where your private lives are no longer private, and where you cannot do anything without government permission. All in the name of protecting you from terrorists, of course.

[1337m4n]

If you look at England right now you can see 1984 well under way. From the Camera's on every corner, to the new law they want to pass to vett anyone who hugs or kisses a child in public. Doesn't matter if you are their parent or not. England is quickly becoming the ultimate nanny state. In some ways China is still in the lead, but that is changing and eventually England will overtake China.

However, China is slaughtering people whereas England is not...

[Apollo20]

Sitting here in Canada

On Canada Day,

This all I have to say:

Canada! What country? What land? What home?

Multicultural Globalism

Has got me in its hold.

No country! No home! No land!

Not even a place to stand ..........

Can-I-die now?

No!

You must work a little harder before you go.

[hamelekim]

However, China is slaughtering people whereas England is not...

And? You're saying that it isn't a totalitarian nanny state unless the government slaughters hundreds if not thousands of people?

[MarkCorrigan]

And? You're saying that it isn't a totalitarian nanny state unless the government slaughters hundreds if not thousands of people?

Hamel, where are you from?

Serious question.

[Cuddles]

Hamel, where are you from?

Serious question.

To the nearest planet?

[stilicho]

Sitting here in Canada

On Canada Day,

This all I have to say:

Canada! What country? What land? What home?

Multicultural Globalism

Has got me in its hold.

No country! No home! No land!

Not even a place to stand ..........

Can-I-die now?

No!

You must work a little harder before you go.
Why are you so pessimistic? Look at our currency exchange.

I find my countrymen inordinately defeatist although we have proudly supported our commitments in Afghanistan, in the Persian Gulf, and in the Arabian Sea. We have the longest undefended border in the world with a great neighbour because we are proud of our nation and respectful of those who share similar values.

[gumboot]

It's not really that that is the problem in Europe, it's more that people keep trying to sneak in one thing while claiming it's something else, and often don't actually give the people any chance to discuss or object.

The way I see it, some kind of world government is not only a good thing, it is inevitable and when it comes down to it, already exists. Just think about the levels that already exist, and must exist, in governing a country. At the smallest scale you have town councils who look after local roads, collect rubbish and so on. At one time that was all that was needed. With better transportation and communication things increased to a larger scale with what are now counties covering many different towns, and a bigger council to coordinate projects at this larger level.

Above this you have regions, or whatever you want to call them, such as Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. They're not all the same, but they each control various aspects of the whole region, and coordinate and regulate things at the county level, but without actively taking part in the little details. And over this you have countries, which control policy for several regions. All this is the result of better transport and communication, which has led to people needing coordination and control over larger areas.

Of course, the details vary in different places, largely due to history. Some countries may be the equivalent of a small region somewhere else, while a country like the USA is effectively a grouping of several countries. Which neatly brings us to the next level up. The USA, EU, USSR, NAFTA, NATO, OPEC and whatever else are just a natural progression. Some, like the USA already exist as a full government. Others, like the EU, provide guidelines and some structure, but are not at the same level of integration. Maybe they never will be. The point is that such things already exist.

Above all there is the world government. Many people don't seem to notice, but it is already there. International law, the Geneva convention, the International Declaration of Human Rights, and many more. What, exactly, is so bad about these things? The thing is, a world government, NAFTA or whatever does not mean a government in the sense of the parliament of a country. It simply means the natural progression of government going from the smallest town council up to worldwide treaties. There is no reason for this to stop at the arbitrary point we label "country", especially since this is already very obviously not the case. The point is, the government at different levels does different things. The EU or a world government aren't going to tell your local town where to build its roads, just as your town council isn't going to try to mediate international conflicts. They all have their places, and as globalisation becomes more complete, the role of global government will become much clearer.

The main problem people seem to have is that we have only fairly recently achieved true globalisation, and it takes a fair amount of time between the innovations that allow (or require) a higher level of government and that government actually establishing itself. People generally dislike change, especially change that they don't understand, and when it comes down to it no-one really understands what the consequences of globalisation will really be. This makes it very easy for people to say that it is a bad thing, and then they have to search around to try to find a "because...". Conspiracy is a good angle because it explains why it is bad and why they don't understand it all in one neat little package (using "neat" to mean "horribly complex mess involving hundreds of thousands of people and several impossibilities").

The message here is that government is not a bad thing. It is necessary, and it evolves to fill the needs. What would war be like without agreements about PoWs? What do we do with people whose crimes transcend any single country? What about places like Antarctica, the Arctic, the Moon, where there are no countries? No-one wants a president of the world, but we do need some kind of government at that level, and we're well on the way to getting it, whether people like it or not.


Absolutely spot on.

World Government has existed for quite some time, in various forms. The only issue with world government, as it is with any government, is how much control it exercises.

Paranoids have this notion that any form of government is bad because government constitutes someone else telling you what socks to put on today.

In reality there's an enormous range of levels of "government" in a person's life, and each tier has different magnitudes of influence over them. But the only government that has any control over what socks you put on is the one called WIFE or GIRLFRIEND (or MUM, for our younger posters).

[Travis]

Absolutely spot on.

World Government has existed for quite some time, in various forms. The only issue with world government, as it is with any government, is how much control it exercises.

Paranoids have this notion that any form of government is bad because government constitutes someone else telling you what socks to put on today.

In reality there's an enormous range of levels of "government" in a person's life, and each tier has different magnitudes of influence over them. But the only government that has any control over what socks you put on is the one called WIFE or GIRLFRIEND (or MUM, for our younger posters).

Hah, my girlfriend never tells me which socks to wear. In fact she won't do much of anything until I inflate her.

As for a world government.....I fear my own Mom's wrath, should I forget to call her on her birthday again, much more than any world government.

[MarkCorrigan]

To the nearest planet?

That would probably help, yes.

[1337m4n]

And? You're saying that it isn't a totalitarian nanny state unless the government slaughters hundreds if not thousands of people?

I'm saying that even if it is a "totalitarian nanny state" (which is at best an exaggeration and at worst completely false), it's still pretty democratic. With well-organized political action, you can change things around and nobody will have to die.

In contrast, if Chinese citizens want to "change things around", they will likely be shot to death for even thinking about it.

England may have cameras on street corners, but China actually USES them.

[Father Dagon]

Would the EU take Quebec?Montreal, yeey!As for a world government.....I fear my own Mom's wrath, should I forget to call her on her birthday again, much more than any world government.Interesting perspectives. But if you can imagine UN on steroids, you pretty much get the idea of how a world government would be...

[Zenskeptical]

2 words


Constitution void

[Horatius]

2 words


Constitution void



145 Words: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendments)

Amending the Constitution is a two-part process: amendments must be proposed and then they must be ratified. Amendments can be proposed one of two ways. The only way that has been used to date is through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the legislatures of the States can call a Constitutional Convention to consider one or more amendments. This second method has never been used, and it is unclear exactly how, in practice, such a Constitutional Convention would work.

Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states, a process called ratification. Depending on the amendment, this requires either the state legislatures or special state conventions to approve the amendment by simple majority vote. Amendments generally go to state legislatures to be ratified, only the Twenty-first Amendment called for special state conventions.

[Gazpacho]

2 words

Constitution void
If the Bush administration has shown one thing, it's the ease with which international agreements can be ignored when it's seen to be in the national interest.

[JonathanClement]

Actually, according to sheitgeist, A North American Union would, quote "Eventually make the constitution obsolete." But that's retarded because I really don't think people are just gonna give up their constitution immediately. If you can supposedly incrementally chip it away, why would you need an NAU to do it?