There is a huge difference between the way the American Constitution was adopted and the way the elite ruling class in Europe is attempting to impose a super government on Europe. The American founders drafted a document which was designed to restrain government and empower the individual and to protect him from the very government being created. The constitution of the European Union, a bloated document of hundreds of pages, is designed to enable liberals to behave like liberals which is to commit government wherever they see an itch that they think needs scratching.
The author of this article describes the process in Europe:
But this problem also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU the heartland of law-based international government the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for ever closer union have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.
If there aren't 200+ stars on the United States flag, I want no part of it.
We were not created to be a democracy, but a republic.
Im with you. A world united under communism would be misery eternal. One united under Islam would be terror eternal. One united under iberalism would be a permanent madhouse (actually it wouldnt stay united very long). OTOH, one united under a compact like the “constitution of the United States” might work very well.
Personally, I’m pulling for a world government as envisaged by Gerry Anderson. That would be quite fun.