[xkaydet65]

The decision not to prosecute treason was political but not made by SCOTUS. It was a decison of theexecutive branch. As to the author’s contention that Chase contradicted himself by declaring that the union of states was declared perpetual by the Articles. He asks how can the Articles declaration be used when they were replaced. But the Articles never claimed to be perpetual. It claimed the Union of States was perpetual. That is what Chase referenced. The adoption of the Constitution did nt abrogate laws passed under its auspices. The Northwest Ordinance remained law of the land and the statehoods of the Old NW were governed bythat law. The passing of the Articles had no bearing on the nature of the perpetual Union.

[mek1959]

It's hard to have a perpetual Union when in between June 21, 1788 and May 29, 1790 (almost 2 full years) the Union only consisted of between 9 and 13 States. That is just a fact. per·pet·u·al /pərˈpeCHo͞oəl/ Adjective Never ending or changing. Ummm...in June 1788, the Union went from 13 down to 9 and was still only 12 out of 13 for almost 2 full years. Now, one can wax eloquent about the "nature" of a Union persevering even when it wasn't a Union, but that's not a fact, just a philosophical opinion, that's all. The facts are, the Perpetual Union of 13 States was fractured for almost 2 years after the new Union met the Article 7 threshold. Which begs the question; just how "perpetual" was this non-perpetual Union. Rhode Island certainly didn't think it was part of the "perpetual" Union. Further, 3 States made it exquisitely clear in their ratification documents they they would re-assume power to themselves "whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." I see no question or clause in Article 7 that the States were "surrendering" their sovereignty to the newly created non-perpetual Union. You can search, but it just ain't there. The "perpetual" Union nonsense was just a figment of a couple of presidents imaginations. A truly silly idea to boot.