The U.S. Constitution Is Unconstitutional!

[Dragon]

We have been living under an illegal government since 1789.

In 1787, the states sent delegates to a convention whose purpose was to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation -- which was the original constitution of the United States -- with a view towards strengthening the federal government and making it better equipped to perform necessary government functions. Although many of the delegates arrived at the convention intending to draft a new government rather than fix the old one, that isn't where the problem lies -- a new government could, within the limits of the old one, be adopted by the states. No, the problem lies in the rules by which the new Constitution was ratified.

The Articles of Confederation contain this prescribed procedure for amending the document:

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, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.

Source: The Articles of Confederation - 1777

Now, the convention could propose any amendments it liked, up to and including "scrap the whole damned thing and use this instead." But the procedure for ratifying the new Constitution was clearly spelled out: 1) Congress approved the new constitution (presumably by a simple majority vote since nothing to the contrary is spelled out); and afterwards the change is ratified by the legislatures of EVERY STATE!

But this procedure was not followed with the Constitution! It went into effect after being ratified by only nine states, and at that not by their legislatures but by ratification conventions. Now, granted, eventually all states ratified the Constitution, but considering that those reluctant to ratify were presented with a fait accomplis -- join up or leave the union -- there really wasn't much choice about it once the new government was already in place.

So there it is. From the moment George Washington was first inaugurated as President and the first Congress sworn in, the United States government has been unconstitutional.

 

[martybegan]

We have been living under an illegal government since 1789.

In 1787, the states sent delegates to a convention whose purpose was to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation -- which was the original constitution of the United States -- with a view towards strengthening the federal government and making it better equipped to perform necessary government functions. Although many of the delegates arrived at the convention intending to draft a new government rather than fix the old one, that isn't where the problem lies -- a new government could, within the limits of the old one, be adopted by the states. No, the problem lies in the rules by which the new Constitution was ratified.

The Articles of Confederation contain this prescribed procedure for amending the document:

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, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.

Source: The Articles of Confederation - 1777

Now, the convention could propose any amendments it liked, up to and including "scrap the whole damned thing and use this instead." But the procedure for ratifying the new Constitution was clearly spelled out: 1) Congress approved the new constitution (presumably by a simple majority vote since nothing to the contrary is spelled out); and afterwards the change is ratified by the legislatures of EVERY STATE!

But this procedure was not followed with the Constitution! It went into effect after being ratified by only nine states, and at that not by their legislatures but by ratification conventions. Now, granted, eventually all states ratified the Constitution, but considering that those reluctant to ratify were presented with a fait accomplis -- join up or leave the union -- there really wasn't much choice about it once the new government was already in place.

So there it is. From the moment George Washington was first inaugurated as President and the first Congress sworn in, the United States government has been unconstitutional.

yes but the articles contained no way of enforcing what was written in that clause, hence the problem with the articles in the first place. Any agency or group that could have prevented the end of the articles died when no state objected to the dissolution of the authorities created by the articles.

 

[Dragon]

yes but the articles contained no way of enforcing what was written in that clause, hence the problem with the articles in the first place. Any agency or group that could have prevented the end of the articles died when no state objected to the dissolution of the authorities created by the articles.

As a practical matter, of course you're correct. The government of the Articles was hamstrung by lack of money and consequent impotence to do much of anything. So it could be argued that, rather than changing the government of the U.S., the Constitution created one where none already existed.

It's certain that, had the requirement for unanimous approval been held to, the Constitution could not have been ratified. It's also just about certain that the nation would have dissolved into thirteen independent nations, with all the dire consequences foretold in the Federalist Papers.

But I like to point this out because it illustrates something important: the ultimate authority for any government comes from the people's willingness to support it. The fact that the law was not followed in this case did not matter as long as the people were willing to support the new government so created. The Constitution, although unconstitutional in terms of law, had the only justification that any government really needs.

This might be something for us to keep in mind, as we now face a constitutional impasse of our own.

 

[konradv]

We have been living under an illegal government since 1789.

In 1787, the states sent delegates to a convention whose purpose was to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation -- which was the original constitution of the United States -- with a view towards strengthening the federal government and making it better equipped to perform necessary government functions. Although many of the delegates arrived at the convention intending to draft a new government rather than fix the old one, that isn't where the problem lies -- a new government could, within the limits of the old one, be adopted by the states. No, the problem lies in the rules by which the new Constitution was ratified.

The Articles of Confederation contain this prescribed procedure for amending the document:

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, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.

Source: The Articles of Confederation - 1777

Now, the convention could propose any amendments it liked, up to and including "scrap the whole damned thing and use this instead." But the procedure for ratifying the new Constitution was clearly spelled out: 1) Congress approved the new constitution (presumably by a simple majority vote since nothing to the contrary is spelled out); and afterwards the change is ratified by the legislatures of EVERY STATE!

But this procedure was not followed with the Constitution! It went into effect after being ratified by only nine states, and at that not by their legislatures but by ratification conventions. Now, granted, eventually all states ratified the Constitution, but considering that those reluctant to ratify were presented with a fait accomplis -- join up or leave the union -- there really wasn't much choice about it once the new government was already in place.

So there it is. From the moment George Washington was first inaugurated as President and the first Congress sworn in, the United States government has been unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional or unconfederational? Since you're claiming the Constitution is void, you can't then claim it as a reference for its own demise!

 

[daveman]

You all hush.

Dragon.

Has.

SPOKEN!!

 

[Dragon]

Dave, I'm not ALWAYS right.

Just a lot more often than you are.

 

[Katzndogz]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

— John Adams, October 11, 1798

As we are now an amoral, non-religious people the Constitution is already inadequate to govern us. We have become what they warned us about.

 

[daveman]

Dave, I'm not ALWAYS right.

Just a lot more often than you are.

Objection. Assertion of fact not in evidence.