Replies

Ping! The thread has been posted.

Earlier threads:

I have a question for the constitutional lawyers here.(of which i am not in the legal profession)

If there is a need to amend or create a new amendment to the Constitution, and a Constitutional Convention is called, can other articles and amendments be tinkered with in that same Convention? or do they have to state the purpose of the Convention prior to the vote for a Convention and strictly stick to the purpose?

later read

Since I've researched this subject for a couple decades, and written about it in one of my books, let me add some factual details here. First, Congress passed its recommendory resolution after nine states had already committed to go to Philadelphia, at the invitation of the Annapolis Convention of 1786.

Note that the Resolution from Congress begins, “Resolved that in the opinion of Congress....” The records of the ratification conventions includes the authority of each state delegation. Only four states limited the authority of their delegates.

Delaware insisted that its delegates demand a continuation of one vote for each state in Congress. Massachusetts and New York both insisted that their delegates only act to amend the Articles of Confederation, not “do what was necessary” in the words of Alexander Hamilton in the Final Report of the Annapolis Convention.

At the end, New York was no longer present. Two of its delegates left on July 10th, never to return. Hamilton did come back to Philadelphia, but since he was not a quorum. NY was officially absent.

Rhode Island was absent. It took no part in the Convention and initially refused even to hold a ratification convention. That leaves Massachusetts. Two of its three delegates, Rufus King and Nathanial Gorham, after communicating with John Hancock and other state leaders at home, decided to exceed their authority, and vote for the new Constitution. The third Massachusetts delegate was Elbridge Gerry (origin of the word “Gerrymander”) stuck to his guns, refused to vote for the new Constitution, and refused to sign it,

So, the argument that the Philadelphia Convention was a “run-away” actually boils down to an argument that two delegates, Gorham and King, were run-aways. The Articles of Confederation give Congress zero authority to call or control a convention.

And now you know the rest of the story.

John / Billybob

“The only topic here is whether there was a meaningful way to fix the Articles of Confederation without starting all over. Build a case, if you can!”

Improvements to the Articles were introduced by William Patterson of NJ early in the convention.

http://www.usconstitution.net/plan_nj.html

Notice in #6 the phrase, “any thing in the respective laws of the Individual States to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Near identical words appear in Article VI of the Constitution. It is a puzzling phrase that has always appeared to me to give states the negative on federal law.