My memory is vague, but I recall from a recent biography of Iredell that this issue created a lot of concern among federalist North Carolinians, but that many also assumed North Carolina was an independent political entity (my memory is too dim for me to use words like "sovereignty" to describe this assumption).
John T. Parry Associate Professor of Law University of Pittsburgh School of Law 3900 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15260 412-648-7006 -----Original Message----- From: Francisco Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 1:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Just for laughs Prof. Levinson writes; > Re the point about perpetual union: Where were North Carolina and Rhode > Island on April 30, 1789, the day that George Washington took the oath of > office. Were they (involuntary) members of the United States of America, > whose constitution they had not ratified? Or were they independent > nations? Or is there a third possibility? COMMENT: Strictly speaking, the Constitution came into force on 21 June 1788 with New Hampshire's ratification, and the Articles Congress passed a resolution later on 13 September 1788 to that effect. I do not think that NC and RI were any longer states of the U.S. after that point. Also strictly speaking, there was only one nation -- the American nation. However, there were independent states. On a different issue . . . . Can anyone tell me if any Con law casebooks address the history of the Constitution's development from the Declaration through the Articles and eventual ratifications of the Constitution? All of the casebooks that I have just begin with Marbury and judicial review. Francisco Forrest Martin
