Michael Froomkin wries:
When I taught con law I, I always started with the Articles. Being a new teacher, I had some trouble persuading the students in the first days of their second semester of first year that this was a valuable use of their time, even though it seems evident to me that many features of the federalists' Constitution are best understood as a reaction against what they saw as the flaws of the Articles.
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
