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'.
Here is the question...
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.
By that serpentine 'logic' (which is difficult to wade through), the union would never have existed at all. Thus, it would never have born the name 'perpetual'.
As for the definition of 'state', it is more an entity that is governed than a form/mode of governing. The word is a noun, not a verb, as used in this political context.
A state does not need to be sovereign. If it is not, then its participation in being included in a union is moot, or at least very vague. The fact that the people who constitute the state accept and embrace the union makes it de facto reality.
So, if ever we accept there was a Union under the Articles, then it was intended to be Perpetual as named, and that intention continued into the spirit of the 1789 Constitution.
Lets begin here......
You stated.....
"So, if ever we accept there was a Union under the Articles, then it was intended to be Perpetual as named, and that intention continued into the spirit of the 1789 Constitution."
Only thirteen of the States were party to the Articles of Confederation, the other States that became part of the union under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution were not party to the Articles, hence any reference to perpetuity would be required in the 1787/1789 CONstitution to be binding on States that were never party to the first agreement.
You stated.....
By that serpentine 'logic' (which is difficult to wade through), the union would never have existed at all. Thus, it would never have born the name 'perpetual'.
Yes the union did exist, as it was a union of States, (and again a State is a mode of government) by definition. Hence the union under the Articles was a union of States...(modes of governments) united together in a Confederacy.
Article I of The Articles of Confederation states.....
"The Stile of this Confederacy, Shall be the United States of America."
The State governments participated via a congress made up of appointees by each States legislatures appointed to represent their States government in the union of Congress.
Hence the continual reference to...."IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED"......
Such as.....
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States,
in Congress assembled.
VI.
No State, without the consent of the United States
in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States
in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
VIII.
All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States
in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States
in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.
IX.
The United States
in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article.
And on and on.......
Next you state....
"A state does not need to be sovereign. If it is not, then its participation in being included in a union is moot, or at least very vague."
Here we seek the explanation of former President James K Polk......
"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty."
To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States.
The Government of the United States is one of delegated and limited powers."
Alexander Hamilton Stated in "The federalist #32.....
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States."
So we see that a State may VOLUNTARILY place a portion of its sovereign powers on loan to a central body in the form of a treaty/Charter/Compact/Constitution, and still remain a sovereign, a State, yet without the ability to withdraw from a union, it cannot be said to retain sovereignty or its status as a sovereign State.
Last you state....
"The fact that the people who constitute the state accept and embrace the union makes it de facto reality."
The people do not constitute a State.
People exist in a territory, but without a mode of government it remains just that, A territory.
The United States has had many territories, and the usual method by which that status changed was that once a territory reached a number of inhabitants, established a constitution forming a republican form of government and established borders, it could then petition to become a member State in the union.
It had first to establish itself as a State via a constitution forming a government.
U.S. Supreme Court
POLLARD v. HAGAN, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)
"By the 16th clause of the 8th section of the 1st article of the Constitution, power is given to Congress 'to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased, by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same may be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.' Within the District of Columbia, and the other places purchased and used for the purposes above mentioned, the national and municipal powers of government, of every description, are united in the government of the union. And these are the only cases, within the United States, in which all the powers of government are united in a single government, except in the cases already. The United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted."
United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts.
The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:
"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:
"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?
"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.
So we see here that the U.S. held no jurisdiction in a murder even on a U.S. war ship as it was anchored within the jurisdictional waters of the State of Massachusetts.
In New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), the question before the Court involved the attempt by the City of New York to assess penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report as to the persons his ship brought to New York. As against the master's contention that the act was unconstitutional and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court held:
"If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction," 36 U.S., at 133.
"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.
