And so how, I wonder, can that event be conjured as any kind of precedent for later "exigencies" that all the actors involved purport to deal with under the terms of the Constitution? Even the secessionists, partly because of a failure of nerve owing to the obvious message it would send about the slaves in their midst, eschewed the language of revolution and pretended that their unconstitutional secession was constitutional.
Matt
***************************
Matthew J. Franck
Professor and Chairman
Department of Political Science
Radford University
P.O. Box 6945
Radford, VA 24142-6945
phone 540-831-5854
fax 540-831-6075
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***************************
At 12:58 PM 8/8/2003 -0500, Sandy Levinson wrote:
I begin with a discussion of the propriety of the Framers' blithe
willingness to ignore Article XIII of the Articles and its requirement of
unanimous consent for amendment (the Rhode Island veto). What do we/they
think of this demonstrated infidelity to "constitutional command"? Do
we/they applaud the framers for doing what was necessary? Does that
establish a precedent for later exigencies, including, say, the Louisiana
Purchase, Lincoln's acts during the War, and current policies of the
Administration re the "war on terrorism"? What do we mean by
"constitutionalism" and how important is it, anyway. All of this comes
from even a brief look at the Articles and the response to them in 1787.
sandy
