Quote from kissanmakeup:
just one small question, why is it that we have to adopt to the u.s. federal's constitution? last time i looked, the europeans, each on his own, have compromised so that all could reach a common ground acceptable to all. it was a very comprehensive program that covered everything pretraining to their relationship.
you are not the center of the universe.
Well, I think you need to look again, because as I understand it, a number of EU nations are having quite a bit of difficulty with issues, such as electrical power generation and whether a foreign corporation should be permitted to own generation in a sister state.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government would have absolute authority, backed ultimately by the power of the military to resolve and enforce a solution to this sort of problem. Howeer, under the EU Constitution, there is no means of actually resolving this sort of contentious issue. The various European nations are still very far apart in their interests, and no individual nation is likely to permit any other nation or private party to gain control over another nation's internal affairs.
So, the short answer, is that the U.S. Constitution is objectively, a superior legal document to the EU Constitution.
However, I submit that neither Constitution would satisfy the Latin American nations, most of which remain under some sort of authoritarian control -- either fascist or socialist.
Which brings us back to the original problem. You are selling the idea the the EU Constitution could work in the Western Hemisphere. I don't think that the EU Constitution is objectively demonstrated to work in Europe as of yet, so I can't imagine why we would want to try it on this side of the Atlantic without giving it another 100 years to so to determine whether it has any survival power.
In short, if any Latin American nation with natural resources or strategic location, really wanted to join the U.S. (and, not some small island, like Puerto Rico), I'm fairly certain that the U.S. Congress and the President would seriously consider the matter.
But, there's not the slightest evidence that this is the case, and in fact, even you view the NAFTA attempt at cooperation as a fraud. So I'm wondering why you think something more comprehensive than NAFTA, but less comprehensive than the U.S. Constitution is the logical solution?
The EU Constitution is just not all that terrific that anyone should be waving it around as the solution to humanities problems. Maybe 100 years from now, I'd have a different opinion -- but, certainly not today.