Guffaw
You offer no rebuttal and no substance whatever.
The thirteen former colonies entered into a compact, whose goal was "perpetual union." (I disagree with those who would term the Articles a "treaty," but I understand how they could look at it in those terms.)
How quickly you REVERSE your position when faced with substance. It is just a few days ago that you quoted your Constitutional Cult Leader, internationalist Francisco F. Martin, and YOU characterized his comments thus: "in this case, he sums up the argument nicely."
Of course, EVERY conclusion of your Cult Leader Francisco F. Martin was dependent upon his assertion that the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were treaties.
Faced with substance, you have been unable to provide any defense of the wacko theory of your Cult Leader.
Credibility is always relevant. Ideas of your Cult Leader have been laughed out of court. Commentators have openly written that they did not see how such ideas could be presented to a court with a straight face.
Credibility is always relevant. YOU stated that YOUR Cult Leader "sums up the argument nicely." That was YOUR STATED POSITION.
[CapnR #1566]Normally I would not quote from the writings of Professor Francisco F. Martin, an internationalist legal scholar, but in this case, he sums up the argument nicely.
"Comment: As I (F. F. Martin) argued in an earlier posting, 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.). This relieved the other states from observing their treaty obligations under the Articles with those states that had breached the Articles. This was the point partially made by Madison. However, some states did not violate the Articles; therefore, the Articles were still binding. This was conformed to the customary international law governing multilateral treaties. However, because it was unclear exactly which and how many states had violated the Articles, a compromise was required. (For example, did Massachusetts violate the Articles by maintaining troops and a navy? Or, were such troops a militia and was the navy necessary for combating piracy -- two exceptions allowed under the Articles?) The solution -- a legal one, I submit - was to use the 9-state rule under the Articles for entering into a new treaty. Unanimous consent was required only for amendment -- not for establishing a new treaty, such as the Constitution."
Professor Martin takes the position that the Articles and the Constitution of 1787 are treaties between sovereign states (certainly a position you would support as well). But that issue is not really germane. Martin's fundamental finding was that "unanimous consent was required only for amendment." Which is what I had stated earlier.
1,566 posted on 10/28/2003 3:46 AM CST by capitan_refugio