The original articles of confederation, before the constitution, were “perpetual.” So, according to you we should still be operating under them?
The constitution does not use the term perpetual anywhere. Why did you confuse that term used in the articles of confederation with the Constitution?
(Not because it seemingly help your position, I hope.)
There is a principle in law where precedent acts are given full faith and credit until and unless they are explicitly reprealed. The Constitutional Convention was convened to improve the Articles of Confederation. Today’s commentators often observe how the delegates to the Constitutional Convention exceeded their authority by authoring a replacement for the Articles of Confederation rather than simply amending the Article of Confederation. These same commentators are mistaken and wrong in those statements. The delegates pushed their authority to the limits, but they never did replace the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. Instead, they technically complied with their grant of authority by extending the original “Enagements” such as the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation by writing the Constitution “to form a more perfect Union” that incorporated the prior Engagements and laws while superceding others with the revised provisions in the Constitution. This is further evidenced by the Constitution not reiterating or being redundant in such matters as to how the “Stile” of the United States of America would ermain the same or the States would remain Sates in the Perpetual Union even though they had not yet ratified the Constitution. The authros of the Constitution remained within their grants of authority by improving the Articles of Confederation with the extending Constitution and not by scrapping and replacing the Articles of Confederation altogether.