Not really. We came to a fork in the road and took it. As everyone who has studied the history knows, the delegates who held their secret meetings in Philadelphia were not authorized by the Congress to create an entire new system of government. They were supposed to amend the articles of confederation in a few very specific ways--regulation of commerce, power to tax, power to pay off debts.
But certain delegates--Madison and Hamilton in particular---already had other ideas. They showed up with a draft or two of a new system. That's why Patrick Henry famously refused to be a delegate, saying he "smelt a rat." That's why it was ratified not by the Congress, not even by the States, who would have acted through the Congress, but rather by the PEOPLE, through state CONVENTIONS. Because, political theory went, only the PEOPLE had the right to abolish their government and form a new one. As we know, they did. And we're still stuck with it today. I'd backtrack all the way back to that point, and try to create a confederation with the necessary federal powers, and nothing more.
So c'mon smart guy. You have repeatedly avoided explaining your form of government to replace the Constitution. Share with us the details of extra powers within the confederation.
I have caught "misstatements" from you before, so please reference your quote from Patrick Henry that I may double-check.
You have a problem that they showed up prepared to correct the awful Articles?
the delegates who held their secret meetings in Philadelphia were not authorized by the Congress to create an entire new system of government.
King George III didn't authorize us to create a new government either. BTW, and as you know, all thirteen of the states ratified the Constitution in accordance with the Articles, so why do you keep bringing this up?
So by your warped view, our Constitution is therefore illegal.