That Illegal Constitution!

By -
You've probably seen this kind of complaint before: the establishment of U.S. Constitution was done illegally under the Articles of Confederation. I will just give a brief sample from one web site:

"Therefore the delegates had exceeded their instructions and were acting illegally."

"The ratification procedure was patently illegal..."

"Some say bribery and other illegal or at least immoral tactics were used to push the Constitution through."

What few of these folks seem to make much of, though, is the fact that, per the previous constitution (you know, the one involving the king in parliament and all that), the Articles of Confederation were themselves pretty darned illegal, and seemed to be "pushed through" with a bunch of shooting.

Comments

  1. scineram10:05 PM

    Show me teh law! As tax cheaters say. Where can I read that previous constitution?

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah11:44 PM

    Amusing, scineram.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous9:45 AM

    Of course, if you listen to some "libertarians," the Revolution itself was illegal because it didn't perfectly conform to modern libertarian standards.

    ReplyDelete
  4. gcallah12:28 PM

    I would have thought it was illegal because it was against the law!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Daniel McCarthy3:01 PM

    What's more, the theory behind both Declaration and Constitution is a popular sovereignty that holds "the people" can dissolve a government and create a new one whenever they deem necessary, though of course the questions of who the people are and how they may go about dissolving and creating governments go largely begged. Forrest McDonald argues in Novus Ordo Seclorum that the idea was that the Constitution was getting approved by the ultimate source of sovereignty, the people-in-the-states, which the Articles could no more restrict than could king or Parliament (or state governments, but that raises fresh problems).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more