Eleanor Finch
The U.S. Constitution has been the subject of debate over its legality, with some arguing that it is an illegal document. The Constitution's defenders argue that the Philadelphia Convention was authorized to revise the Articles of Confederation, and that the resolution pointed to the need for an adequate government. However, critics claim that the Convention exceeded its mandate by scrapping the Articles and altering the ratification process, bypassing Congress and state legislatures. The Constitution's legality was further questioned as it required ratification by only nine of the thirteen states, contrary to the Articles of Confederation which mandated unanimity. Despite these arguments, the strength of the charges waned during the debate over the proposed Constitution, as its fate ultimately rested with the people. Additionally, some have argued against interpreting the Constitution as a living, breathing document, seeking to outlaw other forms of interpretation in favor of originalism.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| The 1787 Convention was a runaway proceeding | The wording authorising the convention was for "the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation" but the convention scrapped the Articles |
| The Philadelphia Convention altered the ratification process | Congress and state legislatures were bypassed in favour of state ratifying conventions |
| The Constitution's adversaries argued that the changes had no legal foundation | Ratification required unanimity under the Articles, but the new Constitution would become law upon ratification by three-quarters of the thirteen states |
| The Constitution overthrew the confederation with a federation | The Articles of Confederation could not be amended without the consent of each state, but the Constitution calls for ratification by only nine of the thirteen states |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The 1787 Convention was a runaway proceeding
The 1787 Convention, also known as the Philadelphia Convention, has been labelled a "runaway proceeding" by some critics. This accusation stems from the fact that the convention's original purpose, as stated in its authorizing text, was "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation". However, the convention did not merely revise the Articles; it completely scrapped them and replaced them with a new constitution.
The defenders of the convention argued that the authorization also stated that the purpose of revising the Articles was "to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union". In other words, the end goal was to create a government that was "adequate" to the needs of Americans. Simply revising the Articles would not have achieved this goal, so a more drastic approach was necessary.
However, critics argue that this action was illegal. Under the Articles of Confederation, any changes required the unanimous consent of all the states. The new Constitution, on the other hand, only required ratification by three-quarters of the thirteen states. This change in the ratification process was also bypassed Congress and state legislatures in favor of state ratifying conventions.
Despite these accusations, the strength of the illegalities argument waned during the debate over the new Constitution. Ultimately, the fate of the proposed Constitution rested in the hands of the people, and it was eventually ratified and accepted as the law of the land.
Understanding Search Warrants: Defining Probable Cause
You may want to see also
The Articles of Confederation were scrapped
The Articles of Confederation were the first American constitution, establishing "a firm league" among the 13 free and independent states. It was submitted to the states for ratification in late November 1777, with Virginia being the first state to ratify on December 16, 1777. However, the Articles of Confederation faced significant challenges and limitations that ultimately led to their demise.
One of the main issues was the lack of enforcement powers for the Confederation Congress. While it could make decisions, it lacked the ability to compel the states to comply with requests for troops or funding. This often left the Continental Army chronically short of money, supplies, and even food. Additionally, the Articles required unanimous consent for any amendments, making it practically impossible to adapt to changing circumstances after the war with Britain ended in 1783.
The central government under the Articles also faced economic challenges. It lacked the power to tax and had to rely on voluntary contributions from the states, resulting in inadequate funding for its operations and the military. The government was unable to maintain the value of its paper currency, and the states often conducted their own foreign policies due to the central government's lack of enforcement powers.
The final straw came with Shays' Rebellion, a tax protest by western Massachusetts farmers in 1786 and 1787. The central government's inability to suppress the rebellion alarmed founders like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. As a result, delegates from five states met at Annapolis, Maryland, in September 1786 to discuss changing the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 effectively ended the era of the Articles of Confederation. The Philadelphia Convention, authorized to revise the Articles, scrapped them and created a new Constitution. The new Constitution altered the ratification process, bypassing Congress and state legislatures in favor of state-ratifying conventions. The defenders of the Constitution argued that merely revising the Articles would not produce an "adequate" government, justifying the need for a new Constitution.
Canada's Constitution: Our Nation's Vital Document
You may want to see also
The ratification process was altered
The 1787 Philadelphia Convention, which was called for the "sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation", has been accused of being a runaway proceeding. The convention scrapped the Articles of Confederation and altered the ratification process. The original Articles required unanimity, with ratification by all thirteen states, but the new Constitution required only three-quarters of the states to ratify it.
The Philadelphia Convention's defenders argued that the convention was justified in scrapping the Articles, as the authorization for the convention stated that the purpose of revising the Articles was "to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union". They argued that a truly adequate government was the end goal, and that this could not be achieved by merely revising the Articles.
The convention's critics, however, argued that these changes had no legal foundation and would doom America's constitutional future. One such critic, Luther Martin, argued that "the same reasons which you now urge for destroying our present federal government, may be urged for abolishing the system which you now propose to adopt".
Despite these charges, the strength of the criticism waned during the debate over the proposed Constitution. This was because the fate of the proposed Constitution ultimately rested in the hands of the people themselves.
Sugar Act: Constitutional Conflict Over Trade Regulation
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Constitution's defenders argued that an adequate government was the end goal
The U.S. Constitution has been deemed an illegal document by some due to the manner in which it was formulated and ratified. The Constitution's defenders, however, argued that the Philadelphia Convention, which was convened to revise the Articles of Confederation, was justified in scrapping the Articles and creating a new governing document.
The defenders of the Constitution acknowledged that the Philadelphia Convention was initially authorized "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles." However, they contended that the ultimate goal, as stated in the authorization, was "to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union." In other words, the end goal was to establish a government that could adequately meet the needs of the American people.
The Constitution's defenders argued that merely revising the Articles of Confederation would not achieve this goal. They believed that a completely new constitution was necessary to create a government that could address the complex challenges facing the young nation. By scrapping the Articles, the Philadelphia Convention acted as a means to achieve the end of establishing an "adequate" government.
The defenders further justified their actions by asserting the superiority of ends over means. They argued that if the end goal is superior to the means used to achieve it, then the means can be justified. In this case, they believed that the end of creating an "adequate" government justified the means of bypassing the legal requirements for amending the Articles.
The Constitution's defenders also addressed the issue of ratification. The Constitution required ratification by only three-quarters of the thirteen states, as opposed to the unanimous consent required under the Articles. The defenders argued that this change reflected the practical need for a more flexible and adaptable governing system. They believed that the new Constitution represented the will of the people and that its ratification process was ultimately justified by its broad support.
In conclusion, the defenders of the Constitution argued that the Philadelphia Convention and the subsequent ratification process were justified by the end goal of establishing an "adequate" government. They contended that the complex challenges facing the nation required a new governing document and that the broad support for the Constitution among the people legitimized its creation and ratification. While the legal intricacies surrounding the Constitution's formation are complex, the defenders' arguments highlight the practical and ideological considerations that shaped the development of the United States' foundational governing document.
Elbridge Gerry's Constitutional Legacy
You may want to see also
The Constitution may be called a document of revolution
The U.S. Constitution has been deemed by some as an illegal document. This is due to the fact that the commission of the Constitutional Convention was to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Instead, the framers decided that not amendment but replacement was the best course of action. The Articles of Confederation could not be amended without the consent of each and every state in the U.S. The Constitution, however, only required ratification by three-quarters of the thirteen states.
The Constitution's defenders argued that the authorization for revising the Articles was "to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union." They claimed that an "adequate" government was the end goal and that the Philadelphia convention was the means to achieve it. Thus, since merely revising the Articles would not have resulted in a government that met Americans' needs, they argued that scrapping the Articles was necessary.
In conclusion, while the U.S. Constitution may have been considered illegal by some due to the way it was enacted, it can also be viewed as a document of revolution that brought about a new form of government with the eventual consent of all the states. The interpretation of the Constitution as a revolutionary document highlights the complex nature of constitutional interpretation and the ongoing debate surrounding it.
The Constitutional Convention's Most Famous Document
You may want to see also
![ILLEGAL DOCUMENTS [Explicit]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81lMprgFOOL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
