6 votes

The Constitutional Coup...

replaced the far weaker and hence more freedom oriented Articles of Confederation with a National Consolidated Government.

Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had authority to make alterations to the Articles, not to completely replace them with a whole new frame of government. At that time the powers of the Federal government were few and enumerated. Further, one can gauge by the formal styling of the document as, "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", that the colonists intended the AOC to be perpetual; they never desired to completely replace their loose Confederation with a highly centralized national government. The Articles of Confederation clearly states in Article XIII:

"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 authority delegated under the Articles was in direct conflict with the resolution of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. The Philly Convention recommended that a new pact between the sovereign states and the newly fabricated National Government was necessary to secure the wealth, welfare and defense of the American people. This recommendation was to be passed onto the legislatures of the individual states for consideration. For the Constitution to take effect, it would only require the approval of 9 states, instead of "every State" as required under Article XIII. It is clear that the Convention acted outside of its mandate, and therefore acted illegally.

Jimmy Madison, in Federalist #40 reiterated the exact instructions for the delegates of the Constitutional Convention as, "Resolved -- That in the opinion of Congress it is expedient, that on the second Monday of May next a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, went on to defend the findings of the convention. That's not such a big surprise, considering that he was the one who drew up the basis for the new frame of government prior to the actual Convention (this was called the Virginia plan).

Any true conspiracy requires that a few plot in secret to do something unlawful. The delegates of the Convention were bound by secrecy to not divulge to the public the proceedings of the Convention. However, none of the well-born few could keep a lid off some of the delegates who were disgusted by the whole affair. Some of the notes of the Convention survived. One delegate, Robert Yates of New York, who later criticized the Constitution under the name Brutus, released his notes. According to Yates, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania proposed the following resolution:

1. Resolved, That a union of the States merely federal, will not accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of the confederation, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare.

2. Resolved, That no treaty or treaties among any of the States as sovereign, will accomplish or secure their common defence, liberty, or welfare.

3. Resolved, That a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme judicial, legislative, and executive.

What's interesting is that another delegate picked up on the logical conclusion of the resolution in light of the instructions for the delegates and the authority they had under the Articles. Yates notes state, "In considering the question on the first resolve, various modifications were proposed, when Mr. Pinkney observed, at last, that if the convention agreed to it, it appeared to him that their business was at an end; for as the powers of the house in general were to revise the present confederation, and to alter or amend it as the case might require; to determine its insufficiency or incapability of amendment or improvement, must end in the dissolution of the powers."

Some of the delegates realized that if they were to affirm that the Articles could not accomplish specific objects and the establishment of a new national government was necessary, then their business in Philadelphia was over, because they were only given the authority to "alter or amend" and not to completely rewrite the frame of government. A few of the delegates left as soon as it became clear to them that the Convention was really about America's unrecognized Aristocratic class establishing the means by which they could secure their domination over the common people.

Americans are in something of a loop. The revolutionary generation was duped into accepting a major advancement of central authority based upon the secret deliberations of a well-born few. This scenario has repeated itself throughout our history, as always Americans are told that more government is needed to solve the current crisis, whilst the actual process of establishing the fundamental rationales for federal government intervention in any area is done behind closed doors.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I would definitely prefer the

I would definitely prefer the AOC over the constitution however the Constitution is not a bad document if upheld as intended and a few tweeks. Get rid of the commerce clause for starters add some harsh penalties to violations of the bill of rights and some clarifications etc.

Having said that Lincoln and his unlawful civil war and reconstruction was the final nail in the original Constitution and intent. Might makes right and ignorance and apathy allow corruption right from the beginning as we see. How come none of the people of the several states did not rebel right away at the inception of the constitution and it's usurpation of the AOC? Same reasons as today I suspect ignorance lack of knowledge and busy making a living.

Jefferson could not have be more right when he penned that the people will suffer and tolerate all manner of injustice as long as it is tolerable...

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

You are on to something but...

Americans are in something of a loop. The revolutionary generation was duped into accepting a major advancement of central authority based upon the secret deliberations of a well-born few.

This is a true statement.

"This Constitution for the United States of America was established and ratified legally by the power of the Articles of Confederation Article X.
The committee of the states, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of congress, such of the powers of congress as the united states in congress assembled, by the consent of nine states, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exercise of which, by the articles of confederation, the voice of nine states in the congress of the united states assembled is requisite.

Now what I ask you to do is go and study the Northwest Ordinance 13 July 1787 written as Organic Law while the secret Constitutional convention convened, this was the coup and it was done legally but hidden in plain sight to ignorant America revolutionaries.

http://143.231.180.80/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws

"This union" of "this Constitution" was the permanent government for the temporary territorial government.

Of course The Articles of Confederation have never been repealed and are still valid law.

Article X

makes no mention of any authority given to the bureaucratic committee in regards to establishing a new frame of government. It was included, from my understanding, as a kind of 'nightwatchman' provision, for when the Congress was not in session. The ratification process took place over a few years.

The authority for the Convention derives from the Congress itself, not the committee, as according to Federalist #40. In Federalist #40 the instructions were clear to alter or amend, not to fully replace.

The Northwest Ordinance is something I am not familiar with, and I'll have to look into it.

And yes, the Articles have never been formally repealed, but the ratification of the Constitution made such a repeal unnecessary.

Thank You!

February 21 1787 Resolution of United States in Congress

Whereas there is provision in the Articles of Confederation & perpetual Union for making alterations therein by the assent of a Congress of the United States and of the legislatures of the several States; And whereas experience hath evinced that there are defects in the present Confederation, as a mean to remedy which several of the States and particularly the State of New York by express instructions to their delegates in Congress have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution and such convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these states a firm national government.

Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.

Now "this Constitution" is legitimate the problem is this document was established and ratified but never "adopted". for further review on this subject go to edrivera.com everything you ever wanted to know about Organic Laws of the United States of America.

With ignorance of the Northwest Ordinance it is impossible to understand "this union" of "this Constitution for the United States of America"

We

appear to draw different interpretation from the aforementioned quote by Madison in #40.

The states sent delegates of mixed opinion. Some delegates left the Convention as they understood it centered around the crafting of a strong Consolidated Nationalist government - not a federal government. Remember that Congress instructed the delegates to "render the FEDERAL constitution adequate" not merely to create a "firm national government."

That was precisely the point of contention among supposed "Federalists" and their mislabeled enemies the "Anti-Federalists." The debate naturally gravitated toward semantics. From the A-F perspective the convention exceeded the authority of Congress because the document produced for consideration by the states would not establish a federal government, but rather a purely national government with only rhetorical lip-service paid to "federalism." I would suggest that our "Federal" government is about as federal as the "Federal" Reserve, or "Federal" express, or even "Federal" munitions for that matter.

From the view of history, it appears that the obscure Northwest Ordinance was the blueprint by which new states would be introduced into the Union, and what their status free slave ownership would be.

However, the concept of union preceded the NW Ordinance; it was not uncommon for the people of the states to refer to themselves as part of the "United States of America" an expression of unification. Did the NW Ordinance do more to change the fabric of the AOC than the Constitution? Hell to the no. And if I am incorrect regarding this, then please be sure to correct my child-like innocence with your benevolent wisdom. j/k.

But seriously, you should post on this topic if it is so critically important but is now underestimated or disregarded by liberty minded folks.

Thanks!

Yes

Any constitution is a license to defraud. The inalienable becomes debatable only after it has been codified.

The Articles of Confederation declares the Perpetual Union

I can see no Fraud in the Articles of Confederation.

This perpetual union declares

Article IV.
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.

This declares freedom for all individuals there is no fraud in this.