From: "Douglas L. Peterson" <fnorky@chisp.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 09:48:30 +0800
To: Todd Larason <cypherpunks@Algebra.COM>
Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199811252328.RAA31856@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <365CBB46.34293003@chisp.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Todd Larason wrote:
>> 
>> Why is this problematic? When the convention was called it was with the
>> express goal of replacing the articles. A tacit a priori admission they were
>> faulty and needed replacement.
>
>But that wasn't the goal, at least not the stated goal.  The Convention
>was called under the procedures specified in the Articles.  The Convention
>itself decided to change the rules for ratification.

If you look at the relevent section of the Articles of Confederation,
you will see this is not a problem.

The Articles of Confederation 
Article XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determinations of the United States
in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this Confederation
are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall
be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be
perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made
in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress
of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures
of every State.


The convention, the States, and the current Congress did as was
required under Article XIII.

-Doug
www.TheServerFarm.net