Posted on 03/22/2011 8:37:43 AM PDT by US Navy Vet
Just who or what authorized in the 1700s the US Constitutional Convention and what or who authorized the disestablishemnt of the Articles of Confederation?
The whole proceeding was actually, technically illegal in that sense. But it was attended by those in power under the Articles of Confederation and they realized at that convention that if they didn't draft a new constitution, it was only a matter of a short while that things would fall apart badly.
This right of the states, in cooperation with Congress, still exists in Article V.
Correct.
The Articles of Confederation were one step removed from anarchy, the Federal Government was far too weak to be effective under that form of government.
The Federal Government needs to have a certain amount of power to be effective and constraints on that power needed to be defined, the Constitution defined those limitations.
Basically, both documents were adopted by the legislatures of the several states, so their legitimacy is tethered to the legitimacy of the state legislatures.Articles of Confederation
The Constitution
This is bull crap. Under the articles the Colonies managed to beat the world's superpower in a protracted war. How weak again?
If the federales were any more "effective" we would be a communist country now.
The Congress of the Confederation authorized it.
Well, 12 of the 13, anyway...
Initially, it was called under the rules of the Articles of the Confederation to settle some disputes between Maryland and Virginia over the Potomac River and Rhode Island’s imposing taxes on all traffic passing through it on a post road. This was called under the authority of the Second Continental Congress. During this time, Madison suggested that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to solve these issues.
January, 1786, the Virginia Legislature, following Madison’s recommendation, invited all the states to send delegates to Annapolis, Maryland to discuss ways to reduce these interstate conflicts. (the Annapolis Convention).
During the Annapolis Convention, it was determined a new Constitution was needed.. and the rest is history.
Wrong. The Continental Congress actually authorized it and sent word to the states to send delegates for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. All states except Rhode Island sent delegates. It was a follow-on the the Annapolis Convention held the previous year which was attended by five states.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h368.html
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
I don’t know. Do you?
Only because we had another superpower fighting with us. Under the Articles, Washington's army damn near starved to death even after the Battle of Yorktown but before the peace was signed.
The Articles of Confederation were subsumed by the Constitution.
In January 1786 at the instigation of James Madison, Virginia invited all the states to a special meeting at Annapolis in September to discuss commercial issues.
Beginning on September 11, 1786, the Annapolis Convention was held to discuss some issues of interstate trade. Attendance was low, with only 5 of the 13 states being represented (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia) and only 12 total delegates attending.
On September 14, 1786, Alexander Hamilton introduced a resolution, applying for the convening of a special convention in Philadelphia for the purpose of amending the weak Articles of Confederation for a number of serious defects.
The Congress of the Confederation endorsed the plan to revise the Articles of Confederation on February 21, 1787.
Twelve states (all but Rhode Island) accepted the invitation to attend and sent delegates to convene in May 1787.
By mid June, the delegates to the Convention decided among themselves that rather than amend the existing Articles of Confederation, they would instead propose an entirely new Constitution.
Afterwards in answer to the question of what kind of government they had formed, Franklin famously said, "A republic, if you can keep it."
It appears man is not very well able to keep the best, most benign, yet strongest government ever known to exist. The main reason in my view: the U.S. Constitution is essentially pro-individual freedom and anti-government. Almost immediately and over time, the bounds of government were eroded by the incursion of those in power. In the end in this wicked world, the lust for power strong-arms the love of freedom even when the law of the land demands limited government.
The conclusion: there is only One who is ready, willing and able to govern and rule in the affairs of man - the Prince of Peace who is coming soon. (Before He comes, of course, a phony world ruler will come and bring final world-wide desolation, unwittingly clearing the decks, so to speak, for the True King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
The answers are above; basically, the individual colonies (they weren’t states yet, I believe, until the Constitution was ratified) through their legislatures authorized the ConCon in 1787, with General Washington presiding. Ratification was no cakewalk, with Madison ultimately agreeing with George Mason and Patrick Henry to add the BoR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.