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 >
