Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 03-03-2003, 06:34 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Silicon Valley, Cal., USA
Posts: 15,785
Were the Articles of Confederation ever formally dissolved?

The Articles of Confederation (the pre-Constitution document that established the first U.S. government) contains the following clause in Article XIII:
Quote:
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.
Certainly, throwing out the Articles of Confederation and replacing them with the U.S. Constitution qualifies as an "alteration" to the Articles of Confederation. Yet, the "Congress" of the Articles of Confederation (which consisted of 2-7 delegates from each state where each states' delegates collectively had one vote) never seems to have met and agreed to make this sweeping change, and worse, the Constitution was only ratified by 9 States before it went into effect.

Are there any documents from the time declaring the Articles of Confederation to be formally dissolved, rescinded, etc., which carry the official force under the Articles of Confederation themselves to rescind or amend it?


(Part of the reason I ask is that the crackpot that wrote this webste: http://amguard.net, claims that since the Articles of Confederation were never dissolved, the Constitution only has jurisdiction over members of the U.S. government .)
#2
Old 03-03-2003, 06:59 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis, Minn.
Posts: 1,202
This issue has been the topic of much scholarly debate. But the debate is purely academic, since the 1787 Constitution has superseded the Articles of Confederation in every way that makes any practical difference.

While the 1787 Constitution was not ratified as an "alteration" to the Articles of Confederation as such, there was substantial compliance with the forms for "altering" the Articles. The Confederation Congress did convene the Constitutional Convention, which transmitted the proposed new constitution to the states. Every state ultimately ratified the 1787 Constitution, although the ratification was accomplished by conventions elected for the purpose rather than by being "confirmed by the legislatures." And the Confederation Congress did fix the date for the commencement of government under the newly ratified Constitution, which amounted at least to its retroactively being "agreed to in a Congress of the United States."

There was little doubt at the time that the 1787 Constitution had fully and lawfully superseded the Articles of Confederation. The argument that the Articles may somehow still be in force, or that the Constitution is somehow limited as a result, is a modern conceit.
#3
Old 03-03-2003, 07:01 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
The Articles were superseded by the Constitution, of course (that much is junior-high history), and since every one of the 13 states ratified the Constitution, it effectively terminated government under the Articles as having any validity. But no, they've never been formally done away with -- for one main reason, AFAIK, other than that sheer feeling being concerned about it is very much the beating of a dead horse.

That one main reason is the Northwest Ordinance, which established territories in the areas that were ceded to the Union by the states, covering the land west of Pennsylvania's west border, north of the Ohio River, south of the Great Lakes, and east of the Mississippi. A fair number of charters, most of the land titles, and a number of other things came about as a result of the Northwest Ordinance and decisions made in and for the territories it established, and IIRC there are still a couple of provisions made by clauses in it that are good law today.
#4
Old 03-03-2003, 07:08 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis, Minn.
Posts: 1,202
Quote:
Originally posted by Polycarp
That one main reason is the Northwest Ordinance, which established territories in the areas that were ceded to the Union by the states, covering the land west of Pennsylvania's west border, north of the Ohio River, south of the Great Lakes, and east of the Mississippi. A fair number of charters, most of the land titles, and a number of other things came about as a result of the Northwest Ordinance and decisions made in and for the territories it established, and IIRC there are still a couple of provisions made by clauses in it that are good law today.
If you look at a copy of the United States Code, the officially compiled statutes, the first laws in the compilation are the "organic laws." The first is the Declaration of Independence, the second is the Articles of Confederation, and the fourth is the Constitution. Between the Articles and the Constitution is the Northwest Ordinance, which the Government evidently recognizes even today as a foundation of its modern existence.
#5
Old 03-03-2003, 09:20 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,361
The amguard site that was mentioned in the OP is just a more convoluted than usual version of the standard "you don't have to pay taxes because there is a loophole hidden somewhere" brand of crackpottery.

The "arguments" he advances are treated on the wonderful THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ site by Daniel B. Evans.

In short, the arguments made can only be taken seriously if you deny that the law has ever been looked at or interpreted in the past 200 years and that if you stand up and yell "foul" it will all go away.
#6
Old 03-04-2003, 04:23 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Silicon Valley, Cal., USA
Posts: 15,785
Well ... some (maybe even most) of the arguments the amguard.net site advances are addressed by Dan Evans' Tax Protestor FAQ (a webpage I am quite familiar with and grateful for). However, the central argument of amguard.net is that the Articles of Confederation (or "AOC" as he likes to abbreviate it) were never formally rescinded, and that therefore the whole Federal government and everything the Federal government has ever done, including drafting and ratifying the Constitution, is only a "sham" doppleganger to the true (and of course income-tax-free) national government of the AOC.

That ridiculous argument, sadly, doesn't appear on Dan Evans' webpage. Nor could I find it at Bernard Sussman's extensive set of webpages on Idiot Legal Arguments. My first counterargument against amguard.net's claim would probably be that it's kinda funny how, if all the states are still officially (secretly?) operating under the AOC, that the state courts nevertheless act like the U.S. Constitution has authority over the states. (Of course, if I said that to the page's author, he'd probably just say "You haven't understood what my webpage is saying! Go back and read everything twice! I'm right and you're wrong!")
#7
Old 01-12-2016, 11:35 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1
wonder if this clause from the AoC would still apply ...


XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
#8
Old 01-13-2016, 10:15 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by tracer View Post
...the central argument of amguard.net is that the Articles of Confederation (or "AOC" as he likes to abbreviate it) were never formally rescinded, and that therefore the whole Federal government and everything the Federal government has ever done, including drafting and ratifying the Constitution, is only a "sham" doppleganger to the true (and of course income-tax-free) national government of the AOC.
The Constitution declares itself the supreme law of the land, and has been ratified by all the states. So any inconsistent provision in the AOC (like the establishment of the Congress of the Confederation and the supremacy of state governments) is superseded.
#9
Old 01-13-2016, 12:27 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 20,755
Zombie alert.

But interesting info nonetheless.
#10
Old 01-13-2016, 01:21 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,149
Bah. I hate it when that happens (though tracer is apparently still active).
#11
Old 05-07-2016, 07:26 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Maine
Posts: 1
Reply from a new user

Quote:
Originally Posted by tracer View Post
Certainly, throwing out the Articles of Confederation and replacing them with the U.S. Constitution qualifies as an "alteration" to the Articles of Confederation. Yet, the "Congress" of the Articles of Confederation (which consisted of 2-7 delegates from each state where each states' delegates collectively had one vote) never seems to have met and agreed to make this sweeping change, and worse, the Constitution was only ratified by 9 States before it went into effect.

Are there any documents from the time declaring the Articles of Confederation to be formally dissolved, rescinded, etc., which carry the official force under the Articles of Confederation themselves to rescind or amend it?
There is, in fact, substantial proof that the Confederation Congress did meet, examine the ratification evidence, appoint a committee to determine the method and time frame for implementing the new Constitution, and agreed to accept the committee's suggestions with very few changes. These evidences, and the evidences which show that the new Constitution was in fact considered and implemented properly by the Confederation Congress and new Congress of the United States, can be found within a document which I prepared and posted at Scribd.com. I had actually prepared this document to be used as a companion document for those reading another document I had posted at Scribd titled "Was the Constitution Adopted?" I had decided to write that document as Part 2 of a series rebutting disinformation being espoused by one Eduardo "Ed" Rivera. Part 1 of that series is titled "This Constitution v. The Constitution." I think you will find that the information and explanations found within these 3 documents gives readers the clearest possible understanding as to how the Constitution was properly put into effect, as well as understanding the relationship between the Constitution and Articles of Confederation as two of our founding documents. I am currently writing a third rebuttal document to refute Rivera's claim that George Washington was not eligible to serve as President because of the Constitution's residency requirement, and believe you may find that interesting as well.

Best regards,

Rickoff

Last edited by Rickoff; 05-07-2016 at 07:29 PM.
#12
Old 05-08-2016, 02:21 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,255
Let's just assume for a second that the AoC was never repealed but was instead changed and amended. Is there anything besides accepting Quebec as a state at its request that would still be in force i.e. not changed by the Constitution?
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 AM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: side buster hoss slang fucking deer can pasta expire powdered water elvis presley handsome lolipop kids dry nostrils crows talking definity hp100 rating obese butts braveheart torture helicopter flight times bump under bruise psych chart lobsters pincers groaner jokes bone jokes puns chicago rush hours nypd detective ranks loosey goosey meaning vehicle undercoating cost nomads biker gang private investigators rights misdelivered mail usps coon's age origin reddit zoroastrianism military jail gay beard italian mistress saltpeter side effects slapping penguins syphilis sheep sterilize a needle what does d girl mean report suicidal person to police how long can you leave cheese out at room temperature can i go back to high school if im 18 how long does it take for a photon to escape the sun how to stop telepathic communication windshield wipers stay up why are pill bottles orange uverse how many shows record at once recharging car battery how long kenny wayne shepherd while we cry a knife a fork a bottle and a cork xylophone songs for beginners fluffy in other languages sven said ten tents torrent error access is denied origin shot of whiskey how does a surveyor know where the boundaries are monsters are such interesting creatures star wars fat character george forman grill panini how to clean 35 mm slides how to request a police welfare check replace 2 prong with gfci cat5 punch down tool does using a neti pot hurt what is the difference between purple and violet remove fence post concrete footing les schwab credit score a person who agreed with hamilton's viewpoint in this quote would say that drano vs baking soda and vinegar how to put down a cat bear spray on human how to send a package without return address