At 12:49 AM Thursday 6/2/2005, Gary Denton wrote:
On 6/1/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 31, 2005, at 1:19 PM, Dave Land wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah. What I've been missing in the flurry of coverage is the actual
> >> constitution itself. Anyone have a link handy to the text of the
> >> document?
> >
> > http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm
> >
> > Available in 21 languages.
>
> And overwrought in each. Yikes. When your constitution *starts* with
> codification of a flag, an anthem, a motto, a currency and a "union
> day" definition, you've become FAR too bogged down in details.
The Constitution was a mess and should have been voted down - everything was
in that thing. Long, complicated, cumbersome,and complex is not what you
want in a Constitution. Check out all the protocols:
http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/allinone_en.htm
Here is a tiny bit of one:
> 11. The business plan for the benefiting company V�lcovny Plechu Fr�dek
> M�stek (VPFM) shall be implemented. In particular:
>
> (a) Hot Rolling Mills Nos 1 and 2 shall be permanently closed at the end
> of 2004;
>
> (b) restructuring efforts shall concentrate on the following:
>
> (i) making the necessary investment in order to reach a higher quality of
> finished product in the short term after the signing of the Treaty of
> Accession,
>
> (ii) giving priority to the implementation of key identified profit
> improvement opportunities (including employment restructuring, cost
> reductions, yield improvements and distribution reorientation).
>
It is also interesting French liberals rejected it for being too
conservative and tied to big business after nearly all the media and over
80% of the politicians supported it.
It sounds like someone may finally have written a worse constitution than
the Alabama constitution of 1901 (which is still in effect) . . .
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
