PDA

View Full Version : "Adoption" of the Constitution for the United States of America



allodial
02-29-16, 02:24 AM
The first three scans are from from American Law & Procedure [1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913], Volume 12, pages 11 and 12 and such. It seems noteworthy that 1) the author makes it clear that unanimous consent was required to amend the Articles of Confederation; 2) the meeting was for "rendering Federal Government" [said nothing of state governments] and regarding the Union {which was only 'territorial' for the most part}. Also of great importance is scan #4 of Article X and XI of the Articles of Confederation (US government edition) regarding "nine states powers" (i.e. powers already delegated to Congress under the Articles of Confederation?). If Congress was acting in a territorial capacity and without the original states would Congress be required to adhere to the "unanimous" requirement of the Articles of Confederation? Is the "nine states requirement" of the Constitution tacit and clear admission that the Constitution was only ever a territorial charter?


3536
Would "Federal Government" have been referring to anything other than U.S. territorial government or both the territorial and the confederacy governments?


3535
Rhode Island not present? What of New York? Unanimous impossible at the convention at least.


3537
"new government" as in "new territorial government"? Constitutional 9 states requirements "coincidentally" jibes with Article X of the Articles of Confederation concerning powers already delegated to Congress. Northwest Ordinance? Cession of Territories?


3538

The Constitution came to exist around September, 1787--AFTER the states had ceded their territories to the Confederacy and AFTER the Northwest Ordinance (July 13, 1787) had been passed by the "Articles of Confederation Congress".


The Northwest Ordinance, adopted July 13, 1787, by the Second Continental Congress, chartered a government for the Northwest Territory, provided a method for admitting new states to the Union from the territory, and listed a bill of rights guaranteed in the territory. Following the principles outlined by Thomas Jefferson in the Ordinance of 1784, the authors of the Northwest Ordinance (probably Nathan Dane and Rufus King) spelled out a plan that was subsequently used as the country expanded to the Pacific.

David Merrill
02-29-16, 05:24 AM
I am not sure where you want the thread to go but...

allodial
02-29-16, 12:03 PM
I am not sure where you want the thread to go but...

Mainly pointing out that even in a multi-volume legal treatise it was pointed out that the Constitutional issue was not carried out in a manner commensurate with Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation--at least not initially. Considering the author(s) being attorneys, though they may not have deeply expounded upon the matter, the mention is significant.


ARTICLE XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States {ALL of them otherwise it might merely be a "committee of the States or nine of them"--Article X implies Congress always means all of them"}, and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State.

Alterations/amendments to the Articles had to be made in a Congress of ALL of the United States--nothing mentioned about a "Convention". Nonetheless, if the Constitution was only made with respect to territories of the United States, perhaps compliance with Article XIII was unnecessary.

***

It is interesting the term "Ratified" is used with an uppercase in the attachment. The evidence weighs strongly that the Constitution was merely a charter for a territorial government despite appearances.

P.S. What a 'coincidence' that at the start of the Civil War, only nine states remained in the Union ("the North") that were party to the Articles of Confederation. Just a 'coincidence'.


Of the original parties to the Articles of Confederation, these nine remained after the Civil War started:


Massachusetts (or "Massachusetts Bay"?)
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Delaware
Maryland
Connecticut


The coincidence is that such an arrangement would allow those nine states to "run the show" under Article X of the Articles of Confederation.

Related:

Violence and the Ratification of the U.S. Constitution in New York City (http://www.gothamcenter.org/blog/violence-and-the-ratification-of-the-us-constitution-in-new-york-city)
Conspiracy in Philadelphia - Gary North (www.garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf)
Secrecy and the Constitutional Convention - Center for Civic Education, Calabasas, California (csac.history.wisc.edu/secrecy_essay.pdf)
The Federal Zone (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/)
Commentaries On the United States Constitution by Dr. Dale Livingston
(www.mindserpent.com/American_History/livingston/livingston_index.html)

allodial
02-29-16, 05:30 PM
On the Committee of States (from the Articles of Confederation):


The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A Committee of the States', and to consist of one delegate from each State.... Article IX, Paragraph 5, Articles of Confederation

Civil War started during a recess of Congress:


Mr. Trumbull of Illinois interjects, while speaking to another matter: “The present insurrection broke out during the recess of Congress, and the President was compelled to provide as best he could for the preservation of the Government until Congress should meet. From: What Really Happened In July 1861 (http://americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/150-Year-Anniversary/July-1861/What-Happened-July-1861.html)

David Merrill
02-29-16, 08:54 PM
Yes indeed - Necessity of an Extraordinary Occasion:


3541

3542

3543

shikamaru
03-02-16, 08:03 PM
Yep....

The commission of the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 were to revise the Articles of Confederation, not to create a constitution.

In other words, the delegates violated their commission. We could say that what they crafted was ultra vires.

allodial
03-02-16, 08:38 PM
Yep....

The commission of the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 were to revise the Articles of Confederation, not to create a constitution.

In other words, the delegates violated their commission. We could say that what they crafted was ultra vires.

Thusly it tends to smell like a federal-level corporate charter or a charter for a territorial government.

allodial
03-02-16, 08:39 PM
..........