There are probably lots of possibilities. However, I would argue that they were members of the union, but not subject to the Constitution (yet).
Ilya Somin On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Sanford Levinson wrote: > 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? > > sandy > > At 11:31 PM 8/7/2003, you wrote: > >2 points: > > > >1. The Articles of Confederation expressly state that they form a > >"perpetual union" and that each of the the 13 states "retains its > >sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and > >right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the > >United States, in Congress assembled." The last qualification shows that > >the states did NOT retain complete "independence" but rather that they > >delegated some of their power to the national government, albeit less than > >under the Constitution. Thus, I don't see how the states under the > >confederation were "independent states" in the sense that we would > >normally use the term. The central government limited their sovereignty in > >numerous ways that are not compatible with traditional notions of > >sovereignty (e.g. -the states could not make war, receive amabassadors, > >and perform various other sovereing functions without COngress' consent. > >They were also required to pay funds into the common treasury (though many > >of them flouted this requirement). > > > >2. The quote from the Declaration Prof. Martin cites says that the > >states were already "UNITED colonies" (emphasis mine). THis suggests that > >they were already part of a common sovereignty and not 13 completely > >independent states. INdeed, the declaration is entitled "The Unanimous > >declaration of the Thirteen UNITED States of America" (emphasis added). > >And of course the Declaration itself was issued by the COntinental > >Congress, a centralized governing authority, albeit a very weak one. > > > >Ilya Somin > > > > > > > >On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Francisco Martin wrote: > > > > > Prof. Somin writes: > > > > > > > I don't want go over ground that has already been rehashed on this list > > > > several times, but I also don't see how the Constitution can be a treaty > > > > given that the 13 original states were not independent nations at the > > time > > > > the Constitution was ratified.They were already part of the United States > > > > under the Articles of Confederation. Even before that, one could argue > > > > that the US already existed as a unified nation because the > > Declaration of > > > > Independence established a new nation embracing all 13 colonies. After > > > > all, it is the AMERICAN Declaration of Independence, not the Virginia or > > > > New York declaration. Thus, as far as I can tell, the original 13 states > > > > were never independent nations. They went directly from being part of the > > > > British Empire to being part of the US, even if the original union was > > > > much looser than what we have today. But if the colonies/states were not > > > > independent nations, then any agreement between them (such as the > > > > Constitution) cannot be an international treaty. Or can it? > > > > > > COMMENT: The 13 states were not independent "nations." They were > > > independent "states." The American people constituted the nation. The > > > Articles of Confederation states: "Each state retains its sovereignty, > > > freedom, and independence, . . ." The Declaration of Independence says > > > "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent > > > States." The Declaration does not say that these Colonies is an > > > independent state. See also Gibbons v. Ogden 1 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 187 (1824) > > > (states sovereign and "completely independent" under Articles). The > > > retention of sovereignty by the states under the Constitution was > > > consistent with the law of nations. As Vattel put it: "several sovereign > > > and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual > > > confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. > > > They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations > > > will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain > > > respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary > > > engagements." > > > > > > Francisco Forrest Martin > > > >
