We must begin with recognizing that the Constitutional Convention was called after it had become abundantly clear that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to the task of governing the several states or, as Federalist 1 put it, "after an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government...." The flaws of the current system were obvious to the Founders.(See the Federalist Papers, especially 15-22.)
The Current constitution came into effect after only three fourths of the states ratified - and it was four years before all the stragglers came in. How'd they do that?
The easiest answer is probably the right one: the Articles of Confederation granted much more leeway to the individual states than the Constitution does, and it was only right and proper to allow each state to surrender that measure of sovereignty on its own decision, rather than by force.
In any case, the question is not how the states came to place themselves under the Constitution, but rather whether or not they had the right to leave once they had done so.
A state's vote to ratify, was an explicit surrender of some degree of state sovereignty to the Union of states, and to the ultimate supremacy of federal government where matters of multi-state concern were involved. Among other things, requiring an explicit state ratification as part of agreeing to join the union, rather obviously carries with it the burden of prohibiting a decision for dis-union.
It is a mistake to confuse a sovereign action with constitutionalism or law. To secede is, by definition, to operate outside of the previous constitution and legal system. We seceded from the British Empire in the 18th century even though it was illegal to do so. We did it as a sovereign act.
This is dizzying ... you defend secession as a "sovereign" act and therefore "legal," on the basis of its being illegal in the case of the Revolution. That is nonsensical. The Founders freely acknowledged the formal illegality of their declaration of independence, and fully expected to be hanged if they did not prevail.
You also seem to be saying that declaring a law invalid, or declaring oneself to be immune from that law, actually makes it so. The only way to validate such an action would be for the existing authorities to refuse to enforce such a claim -- which was clearly not what happened when it came to the American Revolution, or the Confederate secession.
One must expect the authorities take exception to your claim to be beyond their power -- such a claim is explicitly to invite a response. It is silly to complain when such a response is actually carried out.
Says who? The Federalist papers were propaganda favoring the new constitution. It was actually only a small minority who were unhappy with the Articles and ratification of the new constitution was a tough sell. And in any case since when does mere opinion trump law? You were claiming that the states needed some kind of explicit out clause in the constitution in order to secede. But you also say mere opinion was all that was needed to get out of the Articles. This despite the fact that the Articles declares itself to be permanent and the Constitution doesn't.
The easiest answer is probably the right one: the Articles of Confederation granted much more leeway to the individual states than the Constitution does, and it was only right and proper to allow each state to surrender that measure of sovereignty on its own decision, rather than by force.
That doesn't explain how, under the law in force at the time, nine states could secede from the government under the Articles and form a new government. You won't find the answer in the law. They were able to do it because they were sovereign. To put it in the language of Hobbes, there is no check upon a sovereign because the will of the sovereign is law.
In any case, the question is not how the states came to place themselves under the Constitution, but rather whether or not they had the right to leave once they had done so.
It absolutely is the question because the right to ratify a constitution is identical to the right to secede.
A state's vote to ratify, was an explicit surrender of some degree of state sovereignty to the Union of states, and to the ultimate supremacy of federal government where matters of multi-state concern were involved. Among other things, requiring an explicit state ratification as part of agreeing to join the union, rather obviously carries with it the burden of prohibiting a decision for dis-union.
Lol. That is known as the state suicide theory of the union, and it is nonsense. Sovereignty cannot be surrendered by implication. It has to be surrendered explicitly. Sovereignty is the right to act as final judge in all disputes within a defined sphere (usually a territory). Implication requires a judgment external to and superior to the sovereign, contradicting the very notion of a sovereign.
It's also nonsensical to think of the Federal government as a sovereign when reading the constitution. For instance the constitution delegates the power to make war to the Federal government. The power to make war is a power always associated with sovereign governments. So why is delegation necessary? Obviously it's because the Federal government is not sovereign and couldn't exercise this power were it not delegated.
This is dizzying ... you defend secession as a "sovereign" act and therefore "legal," on the basis of its being illegal in the case of the Revolution.
What I'm saying is you can't judge the legality of secession by the standards of the legal system from which the states have seceded.
“We must begin with recognizing that the Constitutional Convention was called after it had become abundantly clear that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to the task of governing the several states”
The convention was called to ammend the AC, not replace it. What the Founders did was illegal according to the ruling document of the time, and they all knew it. Being reasonable men, they didn’t let that stop them from making a better world. Nevertheless, I think the Constitutional Convention, and the ratification process that followed, can technically be called a coup.