...so you’re citing a clause in the Articles of Confederation which the Constitution superseded and replaced in order to justify qualifying the latter’s concept of ‘union’ as perpetual?
That is highly dubious reasoning.
That is highly dubious reasoning.
The Constitution did not supersede the Articles - it amended them. Yes it completely gutted the political arrangements of the Articles, which were working so poorly. No place does the Constitution say, “The Articles are rescinded.” No place does the Constitution say, “The formerly perpetual union is now temporary and transitory.” The Convention didn't have an objection to continuing the perpetual union thing, so they left it the way it was. Nothing dubious about it at all.