Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As, stated, only eleven State legislatures ratified the alterations before it was illegally adopted. Also, the Alteration could not have occurred by State conventions, as article thirteen is specific in its requirements for alteration.The following will guide your further education, James.
"Was the Constitution Illegally Adopted? Michael P. Farris1 * Abstract: This article analyzes the claim that the Constitution was illegally ratified in 1788. This claim is founded on the premise that the Constitutional Convention violated its mandate by adopting a wholly new document rather than simply altering the Articles of Confederation, and by allowing the proposed Constitution to be ratified without unanimous ratification by the states. The article concludes that the Constitution can truly be seen as both a series of amendments and a name change, which was subsequently unanimously accepted by the First Congress. Further, the ratification process was not illegal, as all thirteen state conventions accepted the change in ratification procedure, although only eleven state conventions approved of the document before its adoption."
*Dr. Michael P. Farris is the founding President and current Chancellor of Patrick Henry College and Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. Michael lives with his wife, Vickie, in Purcellville, Virginia with their 10 children and 12 grandchildren.
http://www2.gcc.edu/orgs/GCLawJournal/articles/spring 2011/Constitution Illegally Adopted.pdf
Again, Article XIII states otherwise, and it was the law. Anything outside that is unlawful and illegal.Ratification accomplished that process in the analogous and (political) market friendly manner, previously described.JAKE,James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification. The document was accepted and forwarded. The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
Our new fangled, hybrid Constitution required representatives of the People to ratify it.
There is no Article XIII in our federal Constitution unless you count the Articles of Amendment.Again, Article XIII states otherwise, and it was the law. Anything outside that is unlawful and illegal.Ratification accomplished that process in the analogous and (political) market friendly manner, previously described.JAKE,James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification. The document was accepted and forwarded. The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
Our new fangled, hybrid Constitution required representatives of the People to ratify it.
Our "federal constitution" is the Articles of Confederation, it is the only one which operates under a federal system.There is no Article XIII in our federal Constitution unless you count the Articles of Amendment.Again, Article XIII states otherwise, and it was the law. Anything outside that is unlawful and illegal.Ratification accomplished that process in the analogous and (political) market friendly manner, previously described.JAKE,James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification. The document was accepted and forwarded. The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
Our new fangled, hybrid Constitution required representatives of the People to ratify it.
JAKE,James can argue against Dr. Farris all he wants, and he will fail every time as he does above.
OK, JAKE,The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.
James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.
Farris, admitted that the State legislatures did not ratify, and then claimed it was a legal act, not to mention he is in conflict with the law, under Article XIII. Sorry JAKE, but you are wrong again.Dr. Farris, to the contrary, carefully answered all of the arguments such as you pose.
You are wrong. Your fantasies are just that, fantasies.
You are truly ignorant.
The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.
James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.
Here is the question...The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.
James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.
I can't figure out if I missed something. What happened to 'perpetual'.
JAMES is a FOOL if he thinks that argument means anything. YOU are not the AUTHORITY. Madison 's statement is just fine, and your interp is worthless.OK, JAKE,The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.
James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.
Read James Madison's letter to Mr. Everett, wherein he states that the 1787/1789 U.S CONstitution was NOT ratified by the State legislatures, but rather by the people. Was James Madison. Liar, or are you a fool?
Which is it JAKE?
When the ACC sent the proposed document to the states, the action met all necessary requirements of that Congress. Art XIII was not involved and did not not need to be met. All legislation required 9 votes, and the resolution got those votes. You are wrong, Farris is wrong.Farris, admitted that the State legislatures did not ratify, and then claimed it was a legal act, not to mention he is in conflict with the law, under Article XIII. Sorry JAKE, but you are wrong again.Dr. Farris, to the contrary, carefully answered all of the arguments such as you pose.
You are wrong. Your fantasies are just that, fantasies.
You are truly ignorant.
Here is the question...The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.
James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.
I can't figure out if I missed something. What happened to 'perpetual'.
If the union was a union of States, and a State is defined as ""
" A mode of government"
And a constitution establishing a republican form of government is the prerequisite for becoming a member State in the union, then clearly, there must be a union of States for there to be a United States.
Now if the State governments, and remember a State is ....
"a mode of government"
If they have no participation in the central body that the established to create the union, if they have no representation in that central body established between them, if they have no say in legislation: then how can that union of States be perpetual if the State governments are no longer party to the union that they established between themselves?
It would appear that that perpetual union between themselves no longer exists.
Are you claiming we merely need to repeal the 17th Amendment to better re-establish our federal and republican form of Government?Our "federal constitution" is the Articles of Confederation, it is the only one which operates under a federal system.There is no Article XIII in our federal Constitution unless you count the Articles of Amendment.Again, Article XIII states otherwise, and it was the law. Anything outside that is unlawful and illegal.Ratification accomplished that process in the analogous and (political) market friendly manner, previously described.JAKE,James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification. The document was accepted and forwarded. The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
Our new fangled, hybrid Constitution required representatives of the People to ratify it.
The illegal 1787/1789 CONstitution established a partially national system combined with a partially federal system, (this is explained by James Madison in the CONstitutional debates #39) all one need do is read therein how that system was to function. However the federal portion was removed, leaving only a wholly national system in operation today, therefore you have no "federal constitution) or a "federal government" in existence today.
The question is are you willing to continue accepting a fiction, or are you going to accept the truth.
What you do with the facts and truth are up to you.
that position was closed to the Union under the Articles and opened to the Union under our federal Constitution.The Constitutional Convention was not illegal: James can't prove that assertion.
The Articles of Confederation Congress accepted the document and passed it on to the states: James can't prove that such was illegal.
He needs to present irrefutable evidence, and somehow he believes his assertions are evidence. Amazing.
James, your assertions are not evidence without proof. Your questions are not evidence at all, just questions.
I can't figure out if I missed something. What happened to 'perpetual'.
When I have more time late tonight I will address there4eyemAre you claiming we merely need to repeal the 17th Amendment to better re-establish our federal and republican form of Government?Our "federal constitution" is the Articles of Confederation, it is the only one which operates under a federal system.There is no Article XIII in our federal Constitution unless you count the Articles of Amendment.Again, Article XIII states otherwise, and it was the law. Anything outside that is unlawful and illegal.Ratification accomplished that process in the analogous and (political) market friendly manner, previously described.JAKE,
You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
Our new fangled, hybrid Constitution required representatives of the People to ratify it.
The illegal 1787/1789 CONstitution established a partially national system combined with a partially federal system, (this is explained by James Madison in the CONstitutional debates #39) all one need do is read therein how that system was to function. However the federal portion was removed, leaving only a wholly national system in operation today, therefore you have no "federal constitution) or a "federal government" in existence today.
The question is are you willing to continue accepting a fiction, or are you going to accept the truth.
What you do with the facts and truth are up to you.
