That's incorrect. They were assigned the task of amending the Articles. But they came prepared to replace them entirely with a national, consolidated government.
The fact that they came prepared just shows that the plan was already in the works. Anyone who has been in a corporate environment knows the drill. You get all your ducks in a row before you hold the meeting. You get buy in from the key political people. You do what you can to marginalize your foes, and then you try to ram it through.
King George III didn't authorize us to create a new government either.
That's an apt comparison, because what took place in Philly was a revolution.
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?
Incorrect. The articles required unanimous consent of the states IN CONGRESS, and ratified by the state legislatures.
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.
As YOU know, the Congress didn't ratify the Constitution. They merely passed it off, not knowing what to do with it.
The state legislatures, AS YOU KNOW, did not ratify the Constitution. The legislatures were considered to lack the proper sovereignty to ratify the Constitution, because unlike a confederacy, which acted only on the states, the Constitution was a national government, which acted on the people directly. They therefore required state CONVENTIONS, representing THE PEOPLE, to ratify. It was all completely outside the scope and authority of the Articles.
So now according to you our Constitution is illegal.
You are truly a foaming/spittle nutjob.