Actually, they did have to demonstrate that the Articles of Confederation were a failure and thus the relationship between the States needed to be stronger if they were to survive as a People.
The argument by the anti-federalists was that the Articles could be modified but did not have to be scrapped.
As for a 'revolution'well it was certainly a radical change.
And not every revolution has to be violent, as shown by the glorious revolution.
The people in the aggregate do absolutely nothing under the Constitutional government. The constitutional government was formed after eleven ratifications were agreed upon. There were not millions of ratifications, but one for each state. The people organized themselves by state, and they acted by state. Each such group of people acted independently of the other twelve groups.
The People send representives of their states to Washington to represent them, and that is how their voice is heard at the Federal level.
The sovereigns have the right of change of their government. They do not need to stage a revolution to exercise their rights. They need not justify the exercise of their rights to anyone. If they have the right to do something, that have that right even if exercising it would be an act of gross stupidity. They can exericise their rights for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.
Well, once agreed upon the People had commited themselves to a Union.
The People were now more strongly People of the United States, not only People of the various states.
One was important as the other and just as the People of the United States could not reject reject the People of any state or states, so the People of the states (in any combination) could not reject the People of United States as such.
Any other interpretation is simply anarchy, with the potential of every level of gov't seceding from one another (towns from counties, counties from States, States from the Federal gov't.)
Actually, this assertion is not only wrong, but it asserts the impossible.
When acting in their sovereign capacity, the people act as the sovereign. Whether it be the people as sovereign or a king as sovereign, the sovereign answers to no superior power. If there were a superior power which could require a demonstration of anything, that superior power would be the sovereign.
Had it not been demonstrated that the Articles of Confederation were a failure, it would not have changed a thing. The sovereign states, prior to the Article of Confederation, had waged war against Great Britain and had gained their independence. Neither the States nor the People were threatened with extinction.
The only (self-imposed) requirement was ratification by 9 states (a greater or lesser number could have been chosen). There was no requirement for ratification by 9 states plus a demonstration.
[ftD #2389] The People send representives of their states to Washington to represent them, and that is how their voice is heard at the Federal level.
This has nothing to do with the people acting in their sovereign capacity. The people in their capacity of citizens elect officials. Such representatives exist only as a result of the form of Government chosen by the people acting as the sovereign. The people could have chosen a different form of government where such officials did not exist. The people, as sovereigns claimed the right to change their form of government. Formed into 13 groups, each group acted independently of the others. They did not all act on the same day, or even in the same year. Each group was free to choose whatever mode of acting it desired. The Constitution only became effective between and among those groups who chose to ratify it. When 12 of the 13 groups had ratified, the Constitution was not effective against the 13th.
[ftD #2389] Well, once agreed upon the People had commited themselves to a Union.
Each group that ratified the Constitution delegated to the Federal government those powers which were enumerated in the Constitution and reserved for themselves all powers not delegated to the Federal government. Of those powers reserved for themselves, the chose to delegate some of those power to the State government.
[ftD #2389] One was important as the other and just as the People of the United States could not reject reject the People of any state or states, so the People of the states (in any combination) could not reject the People of United States as such.
The Articles of Confederation required UNANIMOUS consent to make the slightest change thereto. Obviously, the process of proposing and adopting the Constitution was not performed pursuant to the Articles. The people claimed the sovereign power to leave that Union and form a new one. The claimed the right to do this by State, without unanimous agreement of the member states of the existing union. The sovereigns decided that when 9 states had agreed to the new form of government, they would leave the existing union and form a new one. States that did not agree to the new terms would simply be left behind. The new union formed with ELEVEN states and George Washington was elected president by and of those ELEVEN states. At that point, North Carolina and Rhode Island were no longer part of the indestructible union. (Later, the indestructible state of Virginia was split into two pieces.) The people of ELEVEN states rejected the first union and up and left and formed a new union.
Nor can one maintain that it would require a unanimous participation to hold a Constitutional (Monarchical or other) convention. Rhode Island refused to participate in the Constitutional Convention. Representatives of other states walked out in protest during the convention. The convention simply proceeded on its merry way.
[ftD] Any other interpretation is simply anarchy, with the potential of every level of gov't seceding from one another (towns from counties, counties from States, States from the Federal gov't.)
Every sovereign county or town may secede. As there is no such thing as a sovereign town or county, this is, of course, Lincoln B.S.
If a town or county, or group of counties could separate from a sovereign State, the separated portion would become another sovereign state -- for example, West Virginia.
The spurious B.S. position is specifically prohibited by the Constitution: "no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."