Outlawing Abortion: The Office of the President and the Legislative Process.

[Kit the Coyote]

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

The Constitution is not an alteration to the Articles of Confederation, it's a completely different document. And we don't even abide by the Articles anymore, even though it was a perpetual document that every State was to follow.

The Articles were signed in 1781. The Constitution wasn't signed until SIX YEARS LATER, in 1787.

That is how the constitution is unconstitutional, in that it is a new document made in direct violation (approving of something that violates the law makes one a criminal by association) of the 13th Article, which described the Articles as being a perpetual document. (Interestingly enough... The number 13 in the Bible signifies rebellion. :think: But that's neither here nor there... :idunno

Interesting argument, the problem is that all the relevant players at the time and now seem to disagree with you. It's about 200 years too late but you can try and make a court case out of it.

 

[Jacob]

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

The Constitution is not an alteration to the Articles of Confederation, it's a completely different document. And we don't even abide by the Articles anymore, even though it was a perpetual document that every State was to follow.

The Articles were signed in 1781. The Constitution wasn't signed until SIX YEARS LATER, in 1787.

That is how the constitution is unconstitutional, in that it is a new document made in direct violation (approving of something that violates the law makes one a criminal by association) of the 13th Article, which described the Articles as being a perpetual document. (Interestingly enough... The number 13 in the Bible signifies rebellion. :think: But that's neither here nor there... :idunno

I do not see any contradiction. Nothing that makes the Constitution unconstitutional.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I do not see any contradiction. Nothing that makes the Constitution unconstitutional.

It's unconstitutional because it is violating the law that precedes it, the Articles of Confederation, a document which defines itself as a perpetual document.

 

[WizardofOz]

It's unconstitutional because it is violating the law that precedes it, the Articles of Confederation, a document which defines itself as a perpetual document.

The Articles of Confederation is not a perpetual document. It was replaced and was rendered non-binding/obsolete once 11 of the 13 states ratified the new Constitution.

We could debate in what ways the Constitution violates the AoC but it would be moot as simply put, the Constitution supersedes the AoC.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

The Constitution is not an alteration to the Articles of Confederation, it's a completely different document. And we don't even abide by the Articles anymore, even though it was a perpetual document that every State was to follow.

The Articles were signed in 1781. The Constitution wasn't signed until SIX YEARS LATER, in 1787.

That is how the constitution is unconstitutional, in that it is a new document made in direct violation (approving of something that violates the law makes one a criminal by association) of the 13th Article, which described the Articles as being a perpetual document. (Interestingly enough... The number 13 in the Bible signifies rebellion. :think: But that's neither here nor there... :idunno

At the time, there were state legislators who argued that the Constitution was not an alteration of the Articles of Confederation, but rather would be a complete replacement so the unanimity rule did not apply. Moreover, the Confederation had proven woefully inadequate and therefore was supposedly no longer binding. Modern scholars such as Francisco Forrest Martin agree that the Articles of Confederation had lost its binding force because many states had violated it, and thus "other states-parties did not have to comply with the Articles' unanimous consent rule". In contrast, law professor Akhil Amar suggests that there may not have really been any conflict between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution on this point; Article VI of the Confederation specifically allowed side deals among states, and the Constitution could be viewed as a side deal until all states ratified it.

 

[Jacob]

It's unconstitutional because it is violating the law that precedes it, the Articles of Confederation, a document which defines itself as a perpetual document.

What does perpetual document mean then? That no other document can be written?