[nolu chan]

• in this case, he sums up the argument nicely.

  So you subscribe to those stated beliefs of Professor Francisco Forrest Martin as you have quoted and described them.

• the Framers in settling on a non-unanimity rule were legally justified to do so because several of the states had violated the Articles of Confederation by, e.g., entering into treaties with other foreign states (viz., Va, Md. NY, Pa., Ga.).
  • "Several of the states" allegedly had violated the Articles of Confederation.
    • How was this legally determined?
      
    • Was it simply proclaimed by one or more New England states (NH, MA, RI, CT)?
      
    • Were the allegations investigated by the US congress as per the AoC?
      
    • Did any governmental entity proclaim any such allegation to be true?
      
    • Does a mere allegation suffice to establish the referenced justification?
      
    • If it was officially established as more than an allegation, where is the evidence that it was so officially established?
      

  Articles of Confederation:

  The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, 'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward': provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.

  All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before presecribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.

• This relieved the other states from observing their treaty obligations under the Articles with those states that had breached the Articles.
  • What law provides that the other states (CT, DE, MA, NC, NH, NJ, SC, RI) were relieved of their obligations?
    
  • If this grant of relief was ever officially proclaimed by any government entity, please cite the proclamation.
    
  • Could each state unilaterally proclaim another state in breach and unilaterally relieve itself of its contractual obligations?
    

• This was the point partially made by Madison.
  • Please provide the Madison quote where he is alleged to have partially made this point.

• However, some states did not violate the Articles; therefore, the Articles were still binding.
  • Which states did not violate the Articles?
    
  • How was this determined?
    
  • What Articles were binding on whom?
    

• This was conformed to the customary international law governing multilateral treaties.
  • Please cite the referenced "customary international law" which says that a party can be relieved of its obligations while the contractual obligations remained binding.

• However, because it was unclear exactly which and how many states had violated the Articles, a compromise was required.
  • If nobody knew who, if anybody, violated the Articles, why was a compromise required? If it was unclear which and how many states had violated the Articles, which Articles were binding upon whom, and which states were free of the obligation to do what?

• The solution -- a legal one, I submit - was to use the 9-state rule under the Articles for entering into a new treaty.
  • The solution to what?

• Unanimous consent was required only for amendment -- not for establishing a new treaty, such as the Constitution.

  Articles of Confederation:

  The United States in Congress assembled shall never ... enter into any treaties or alliances, ... unless nine States assent to the same

  Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; 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 United States in Congress assembled could enter into a treaty upon the assent of nine States, but could not make any alteration to any of the Articles unless such alteration was agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

• Professor Martin takes the position that the Articles and the Constitution of 1787 are treaties between sovereign states
  • The theory of the Professor Martin inescapably concludes that the current Constitution is a treaty between the states and subject to interpretation according to that something, or nothing, known as International Law.

• (certainly a position you would support as well).
  • Please provide the quote where I have ever asserted the Constitution to be a treaty.

  • But that issue is not really germane.

  • This issue is most germane. It is the premise upon which the Professor Martin builds and issues his conclusions. If the premise fails, the conclusion does not obtain.

• Martin's fundamental finding was that "unanimous consent was required only for amendment."
  • Martin's fundamental assertion is that the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were formed as treaties subject to International Law.

---

REGARDING THE ASSERTED APPLICABILITY OF THE "RULE OF NINE"

Assume arguendo the rule was applicable as stated.

At any time, any nine states could wilfully and deliberately violate the contract, form a convention, and replace the contract with one of their choosing.

The righteous 9 could adopt and enact a contract on behalf of all 13 states saying anything. The righteous 9 could impose an Islamic Republic in which only sworn believers of Islam would be permitted to hold office. The righteous 9 could establish a Taliban court as the Supreme Judicial Court. The righteous 9 could permanently abolish habeas corpus.

As the union is perpetual and indissoluble, the heretical 4 are bound to the (now Islamic) union forever. They may not secede. If they do not ratify, the righteous 9 will meet in Congress and reserve chairs for when they succumb to economic coercion.

Should the heretical 4 attempt to secede, the righteous 9 have the legal right and sacred obligation to crush them. Following their destruction and surrender, the heretical 4 must conform their constitutions as directed by the righteous 9. They will be ruled by martial law until they have reformed to the satisfaction of the righteous 9.

---

THE AofC "RULE OF NINE" AS REVISED BY THE CONSTITUTION

U.S. Const., Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ....

---

BASIC CONTRACT LAW

In case of a material breach by one of the parties, said party shall not be allowed to benefit from the breach. Professor Martin specifically named 5 breaching states (GA, MD, NY, PA, VA). That only leaves a potential of 8 righteous, non-breaching states. Pursuant to the Rule of Nine, at least one heretical breaching state must have been allowed to participate in creating and enacting the new contract, obtaining benefit from his own breach.

In fact, PA was the second state to ratify, GA was the sixth state, and MD was the seventh state.

The new contract was brought to life by the first nine ratifications. Fully one-third of the actors who created the new contract were among those named by Professor Martin as having been in breach of the Articles of Confederation.

RI was not alleged to have committed any breach, yet was subjected to economic coercion by all five of the allegedly breaching states.

---

SUBJECTING OUR CONSTITUTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW

• Who creates International Law?
• Who determines what International Law is?
• Who can change International Law?
• Could the "editors" of International Law determine that capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment and thereby cause same to be unconstitutional?
• Could the "editors" of International Law determine that discrimination against NAMBLA is a crime in the United States?
• Could the "editors" of International Law determine the age of consent in the United States?
• Could the "editors" of International Law define terms in the U.S. Constitution to construe the instrument to their desired result?

---

[4CJ]

You convinced me ;o)

[capitan_refugio]

The Constitution was developed in a Convention of delegates, representatives of the people. The Convention proposed the new Constitution, not the Congress of the Confederation. The Convention established the rules for ratification of the proposed Constitution, not the Congress. The rule of unanimous consent by the State legislatures applied to amendments of the Articles by the Congress of the Confederation. The proposed Constitution was a product of the people, in convention, rather than the Congress. The Articles were superceded by the Constitution of 1787 and the Constitution was to apply to those states that ratified it. Once nine states ratified, the new form of government was to be instituted. In fact, the date set to begin government under the Constitution was established by the Congress of the Confederation.