[Huck]

The question at hand was whether it's provable that the Union would have crumbled without the Constitution. You argued, incorrectly, that it is provable when of course it is not. There are any number of things that COULD have happened, and we'll never know what might have happened.

As for the Constitution, it was NOT ratified in accordance with the Articles. The Articles stipulate:

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.

The Constitution was ratified by state CONVENTIONS, not state legislatures. Anyone who has studied this stuff understands the difference. The framers used conventions to appeal directly to the people, not to the states. The PEOPLE ratified the Constitution, through the state conventions.

The reason for this was that unlike the Articles, which acted upon the states, the new system was a complete system, acting on the people directly.

So again, you're incorrect.

[Jacquerie]

So the equivalent of state space aliens ratified the Constitution?