Thats because some governments thought you can hold national referendums and hope that all of them that are held will be positive... or so.

If your constitution writers would also have held 13 referendums (in each state one whereas all have to be positive), you would not have got your constitution either, it would have failed pretty much for sure. I mean thinking how controversial it was already on top politician level ...

__________________
Vienna Central-Cementery:
"Half the size of Zürich, but twice the fun"

I guess we have to agree to disagree about the UN not being a form of government. In my view, it is a form of government, simply because we send representatives from our State to talk to representatives of other States, to deal with inter-State issues.

You may have a political technical point, but I think our container (Earth) pretty much binds all the current and future membership of the UN to a perpetual Union.

From my perspective, I think it was more of a state's rights issue how any given state decides to implement its form of statism. We would have had more of a basis for concern in Iraq, if a federal UN was empowered to guarantee a republican form of government to the several states of the Union.

It depends on the implementation of a Bill of Rights. How many states (or current anarchies) would not benefit from a well regulated militia of people who keep and bear arms, in order to ensure the domestic tranquility of the state?

With a more perfect Union, I am not sure our 1st Amendment would actually be an impediment for any given state. For example, I can not imagine the sovereign State of California needing to create official secrecy acts to protect itself from "foreign" invasion from fellow states of the Union.

From my perspective, even the US government should not be able to enforce any forms of non-public acts without a formal declaration of war, invasion or rebellion.

With a more perfect Union there would no longer be much worry of a foreign invasion than there is with any of the several states of the US Union having to worry about an invasion from a fellow state of the Union.

Consider a hypothetical example of the current US Constitution. It is unlawful for any of the several states to engage in warfare amongst each other. In this sense, we have ended war, as we currently know it, amongst the several states of the Union. A UN federal Union could accomplish the same thing in a similar manner.

I'm sure the Democrats would be all for it.

__________________
-Eric

"For whoever habitually suppresses the truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from the womb of his thought." -Sir Basil H. Liddel-Hart

Self-composed.com

Are you working off the assumption that all member states of the UN would agree to a such a constitution? Because that is the main stumbling block in my eyes, besides the surrendering of US sovereignty. When the US Constitution (and the AoC) was created Americans were still a relatively hegemonious nation, ie pretty much all white, christian, and western european. That would not be the case for a world government. Getting the different cultures and societies of the world to agree to such a government would be nigh on impossible. Even if they were all on board, how could you guarantee that a UN constitution would look like the US Constitution?

To sum all this up, I believe you are looking at all this rather simplistically.

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

Indeed. The parallel is apt. Although I'm sure the US will leave the EU no choice but to agree on one, eventually.

Patently untrue. In fact, most Constitutions out there do more to limit the government's power than the US Constitution does.

Why should they?

Just out of curiosity, how would you define socialism?

They would be a step up for the US too. In fact, the US can't even comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no doubt because they don't want to "cripple" themselves.

And that is relevant, how, exactly?

I am working off the assumption that the requisite number of states would need to ratify such a Constitution.

How much sovereignty would the US be surrendering, if there is a Tenth Amendment and clearly defined federal powers? If anything, I think the theory of nullification would enjoy a revival from its current languishment if a not yet powerful UN federal government tried to encroach on the sovereignty of the US, and its states' rights.

I am of the opinion that your concern over homogeneity is ill founded. We are all homo sapien sapiens at the UN level. Your view seems to be overly concentrated in central government. A better federal Constitution at the UN level would still allow for states to do most of the governance.

Even the current US Constitution was not wrought overnight. It was a development over a number of years and only after a recognition of the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation. The UN is still evolving and will evolve even without a better constitution and Bill of Rights if left to normal bureaucratic tendencies.

I may have a simplistic view, but even the League of Nations didn't work out very well either. As a successor, the UN seems much more capable and could be even better at promoting and providing for the general welfare of the Union with a better charter.

Even with all of the current waste that can be found in that institution, it would be less waste than the current level of anarchy we have. A federal UN would have less need to resort to weapons of mass destruction if it is promoting and providing the general welfare by building roads and aqueducts to regions currently not having access to such basic infrastructure.

You're welcome to cite examples.

They don't have to...but they should if they ever want to be viewed as worthy of being taken seriously by Americans.

Ours is crafted with the powers in the hands of the citizenry in mind, not within the hands of some bureaucratic centralized entity. Whatever power the centralized entity has is bestowed upon it by the people...whereas others are designed with the opposite in mind (unless you can show me otherwise).

The antithesis of freedom. Social engineering. Redistribution of wealth. Meddlesome and unimpeachable centralized power.

Quite obviously, we feel differently which is why we fail to ratify 99% of that garbage. Sure, you'll get an occasional "Jimmy Carter" to "sign" one of those "well-intended" documents - but fortunately, our Constitution (*gasp*, there's that word again) prevents the idiocy of one man from roping us into a bad situation by requiring our Senate to approve treaties (*cough* 0-98 vote result in favor of Kyoto *cough*).

Pick your favorite one. Seriously. I'll not only tell you what's wrong with it, but give it to you David Letterman Top Ten-style.

We're tried, true, and tested. Meanwhile (key word: meanwhile) various lefty social experiments have come, failed, and gone.

Our Constitution is the keystone to what has proven to be a uniquely superior experiment. What I said is relevant insofar as I see no reason to allow inferior n00bish international documents to weaken or otherwise poison what has worked for us so well - worked longer than any non-U.S. situation you can cite.

Y'all can pass around rubber stamped ("...with gold leaf, and all....") parchments all you want. Have a blast. Knock yourself out, Sparky. Just don't get pissed off when we don't want to play your silly reindeer games.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

My point here, daniel, is that I don't think the rest of the world would agree on a 10th Amendment, or the same seperation of powers that the US Constitution specifies. What if most nations want to push for a abolishion on ownership of personal firearms? What if they want to restrict freedom of speech? What if they want the world federal government to provide health care? What happens if we (America or any other country) oppose this, but the rest of the world doesn't? Do we grit and bear it? Do we not sign, and go on as we are?

I agree with you that we are all of the same species, and race/ethnicity wouldn't factor in the thoughts of people like you and I. However, what is true of us is not true of everyone.

I simply do not have faith that such a world constitution would turn out anything like ours.

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

Why would any state object to an amendment that provides for state's rights?

Why should any other state care what a fellow state does within its own borders?

In the example of gun ownership, even the US has problems with gun lovers loving their guns more than their republic. There would be no gun control laws if we had a culture of militia service, as was the situation before the courts had to intervene with a common law basis for gun control. Many states could overcome that issue by simply providing for a well regulated militia that can help ensure the domestic tranquility, even in cases of natural disaster.

I think health care is a states' rights issue. From this point of view, the US would be simply another state in the Union. There would be nothing to prohibit states from implementing their own health care systems.

I think the issues of free speech could be factored in after a number of years, in a manner similar to the expiration of the power of Customs by the several states in favor of that power of the Union. In any case, I think there would be less need for restrictions on free speech if there was also less danger of foreign invasion and a more perfect Union among the several states.

By not making any attempt at something like our Constitution, you are guaranteeing that there will not be one like ours.

Proven uniquely superior ?

Like the minority of voters chosing the President ? Remember 2000 ?

This doesn't work. But unfortunately you are unable to change this special point of your Constitution because it is just too difficult within your Constitution to change just anything.

__________________
______________________Own only what you can always carry with you: know languages, know countries, know people. Let your memory be your travel bag.”___________________Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Because other nations do not have the same idea of what a federal government should be, or its powers, as the United States. Some nations, and their people, love strong central governments. Do you honestly think certain nations in Europe, for example, would be willing to give up their social systems?

Because in today's world, or more importantly economy, what one nation does directly effects others.

So now you are talking about changing our culture to suit your vision? Yet one more reason to fight this.

So, essentially, every country would continue to function as normal? Why then would you even need that extra level of government?

I think it would be a bigger problem than you make out. What happens, for example, if someone again posts a picture of Mohammad?

I am not pushing for "something like" our, I am pushing for our Constitution word for word. As I have said before, I would support your idea if the rest of the world adopted our entire constitution. That, however, I can never see happening.

I am finding your view of the world to be a tad naive. What if some countries refuse to "play"

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

I would agree with your position if there was to be a massive shift towards a centralized government, far away from the local populace. In practice, a UN federal government would not have to require any changes to existing state governments if they choose to nullify any federal powers not granted to the federal government. Why would a local resident of a local state be concerned over whether world government was catering to their local needs? Where is your basis for that line of reasoning?

In today's world and global economy, it is also important to have a more perfect Union in order to maximize the benefits of a society so established. Are you implying that better cooperation is worse than our current level of anarchy?

I am not sure what you are saying about making any changes to our culture. We already have a Second Amendment. I was simply stating what other states could do if they want to facilitate gun ownership as an individual right. Many, if not all, US states have gun control laws that would not exist if people were more willing to join a militia.

It depends on where they post the picture. It would only be more of an issue on UN federal property than State property due to states rights. A UN federal government would not be nearly as intrusive as the US federal government is now. No one is advocating public sector intrusion on private property (rights).

I think a slightly more generic version of our Constitution would be better and more suitable for a global system. Our Constitution already has too many US specific amendments. Hypothetically, what about something similar to our Constitution with only with a Bill of Rights included (the first ten amendments)?

I think it is only naive if there is not sufficient motive for any states to not want to join a more perfect Union.

[quote=danielpalos;1137972]I would agree with your position if there was to be a massive shift towards a centralized government, far away from the local populace. In practice, a UN federal government would not have to require any changes to existing state governments if they choose to nullify any federal powers not granted to the federal government. Why would a local resident of a local state be concerned over whether world government was catering to their local needs? Where is your basis for that line of reasoning?

Welfare states. What about peoples who feel it is the job of government to support them, ie communist/socialist societies? Would it be left up to the state governments? If so, then what exactly is the UN government going to do that the states can't do for themselves?

anarchy? I see no anarchy. Free trade can be accomplished without a "more perfect Union", as has already been shown.