[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
…technically illegal.[/quote]
An interesting phrase.
No one addressed this as a problem as the delegates gathered. And there were some very negative legal minds there; the New York delegates who left never used this as an excuse, for example.
And then, the results of the meeting were of course accepted–legally, by votes and conventions as law dictated. So the CC may have exceeded its charge, but its deliberations and result were in no way illegal.
[/quote]
This may be so but the calling of the convention was technically illegal, addressed or not.
As I mentioned earlier, the ideas of no nullification and no secession, no matter what the writings of Madison say, were not firmly entrenched in 1789.
And for the record, the first states that ever brought up this issue and actually started the discussion to initiate the process were from New England, not Dixie, in the lead up to the War of 1812.
Long before Jackson’s go-round with South Carolina and way before Abe’s brouhaha with the CSA, Madison was dealing with secession talk in the Northeast. In my opinion this probably had everything to do with Madison’s strong stance against it; after all he was the second president to have to deal with it (I believe Jefferson heard talk from the same states during the Quasi-War with France a few years earlier).
It is simply not historically accurate to suggest it was “settled (political) science” in the late 18th and the first half of the 19th century. It was a hotly debated topic and open to several interpretations.[/quote]
The delegates who left believed scrapping the articles exceeded the authority the people of their state had endowed them with.
And they weren’t the only state unrepresented.[/quote]
New York left for other reasons.
This assertion begs a reference if you have one.
[/quote]
Allow me to quote the new york delegates. Bold mine.
"SIR, We do ourselves the honor to advise your Excellency, that, in pursuance of concurrent resolutions of the Honorable Senate and
Assembly, we have, together with Mr. Hamilton, attended the Convention appointed for revising the articles of Confederation, and
reporting amendments to the same.
It is with the sincerest concern we observe, that in the prosecution of the important objects of our mission, we have been reduced to the
disagreeable alternative of either exceeding the powers delegated to us, and giving our assent to measures which we conceived destructive
of the political happiness of the citizens of the United States…"[/quote]
Yes, this quote I know, from Robert Livingston believe, an anti-Federalist. It was not clear that he was supporting the Articles of Confederation and negating the legitimacy of the Constitutional Convention. To put a fine point on it, he was a stealth opponent, appointed by Governor Clinton to sabotage the proceedings. So I don’t hink he questioned the legitimacy of the CC, he was just playing out the appointed role of negation in favor of New York (Clinton’s) aspirations to control tariff revenues exclusive of the Federal Government. (Chernow’s bio of Hamilton handles this rather well.)
Clinton’s enemy Hamilton stayed, and became the leader, and not of the New York delegation alone.[/quote]
I’m going to need some citation of this stealth appointment.
The quote is almost verbatim what I’d said. The belief that it was illegal was listed as a primary reason for leaving. They thought scrapping the articles illegal. Period.
[/quote]
Chernow, Alexander Hamilton
Does it matter what those delegates wrote as their sanitized reasons for leaving the Convention? Now remember, in a “hotly contested” election, New York ultimately voted for the Constitution, legitimizing the results of the CC above those of AofC. The anti-federalist Clinton lost that one, but forever was undermining the Federal government thereafter–when it suited his (pecuniary) purposes.[/quote]
Barely voted for it. Barely. And that was forgiveness after the fact not authority to act.
You aren’t even arguing the issue anymore. The convention was illegal as it was outside the authority granted to the delegates. Stuff after the fact has no effect on that. For the record, though illegal, I don’t think most really cared (including the people). But calling it technically illegal is entirely valid. The convention did violate it’s commission.[/quote]
In February 1787, the Continental Congress called for a convention of delegates to meet in May in Philadelphia “to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.”
A rather broadly worded charge, yes?
It does not say specifically “to amend the existing Articles of Confederation.” Was there a list of limitations of action? Probably not; delegates typically had to exercise “judgment.”
But in the interest of amity, I will concede that the legality of the Constitutional Congress is moot. Of historical interest. And pointless, given the express opinion–more than acquiescence–of every respected Founding Father.
[/quote]
The articles were the law of the land. They had a legal process for changing them. The process was violated and ignored by the convention and the ratification process without consent from all contracted parties . Technically, once all states had signed on to the constitution, you could claim the authority to change the articles had been met, but that was after states had stopped following the articles and the new government was up and running.
I don’t need to point out that the convention was ordered to follow the articles, because the articles WERE the law until they are legally changed, a process that was never truly fulfilled. 13 parties signed a contract stating that all 13 had to agree in order to change it. Then less than 13 parties proceeded change it completely. It was illegal, because it violated the legal process for doing so.