If you consider all the protocols, understanding, and extensions it is much worse than the Texas which requires amending every two years for simple matters.
I am not sure if these protocols and understandings should be considered as the EU Constitution as they deal with such important issues as individual factory modernizations and property rights of citizens of the EU in Malta for properties of various prices. The right nationalists, the anti-bureaucratise, and the socialists had much to dislike as well as proponents of a common sense democratic union. On 6/2/05, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > 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 <snip> > > > > It sounds like someone may finally have written a worse constitution > > than the Alabama constitution of 1901 (which is still in effect) . . . > > How much worse than the Texas constitution is it? The Texas > constitution requires that the legislature, then the voters, pass all > sorts of amendments to get a good number of things done. > -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
