Continuity from the Articles

[Bob Sheridan]

Ah, the irony produced by constitutional discussion.

Maybe there's some arguable continuity but we get to cherry-pick the 
useful bits and reject what is no longer tasty.

I wonder whether we'd be better or worse off incorporating Canada. 
When's the last time they messed up big-time?

Something tells me they want no part of us...

-rs


Matthew J. Franck wrote:

> I haven't read the article yet, though I look forward to it. My 
> question is, if there is continuity from the Articles to the 
> Constitution, is the offer still open for Canada to become the (now) 
> 51st state? Or was that foreclosed by the Constitution's failure to 
> mention it?
>
> Matt
> ***************************
> Matthew J. Franck
> Professor and Chairman
> Department of Political Science
> Radford University
> P.O. Box 6945
> Radford, VA 24142-6945
> phone 540-831-5854
> fax 540-831-6075
> e-mail mfranck at radford.edu <mailto:mfranck at radford.edu>
> www.radford.edu/~mfranck
> <http://www.radford.edu/%7Emfranck>***************************
> At 07:08 PM 9/22/2004, Calvin Johnson wrote:
>
>> I invite critique and controversy in reaction to my "Homage to Clio: 
>> The Continuity from the Articles of Confederation into the 
>> Constitution," 20 Constitutional Commentary 463 (2004), which can be 
>> reached at 
>> http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/HomageToClio.pdf 
>> <http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/HomageToClio.pdf%A0%A0> 
>> I would of course send the reprint to you all, personally, if only I 
>> could afford it.
>> My best
>> Calvin Johnson
>>
>>     Abstract: The nature of the United States continued even as the
>>     Articles of Confederation was replaced by the Constitution. The
>>     Constitution is a radical document, but unstated assumptions
>>     about political institutions continued from the Articles into the
>>     Constitution. Only the provisions that were challenged or changed
>>     were written down. Routine parts of what the Framers knew defied
>>     articulation. 
>>     Historical continuity explains why George Washington could be
>>     President, even though Virginia had not ratified the Constitution
>>     either when he was born or when the Constitution was adopted. The
>>     United States was the same United States before and after
>>     ratification. 
>>     Historical continuity implies that the ban in the Articles of
>>     Confederation on state discrimination against out-of-state
>>     citizens by taxation or regulation is part of the Constitution,
>>     although not stated. The norm was strongly felt, but unchallenged
>>     and so not written down in the Constitution. 
>>     Historical continuity implies that Congress may commandeer state
>>     officers as it did under the Articles. Tax requisitions were a
>>     commandeering of state officers for federal benefit under the
>>     Articles. The Framers assumed that requisitions of tax and
>>     similar commandeering would continue under the Constitution. 
>>     Finally, historical continuity implies that Congress has the
>>     general power to adopt all appropriate measures “for the common
>>     Defence and general Welfare.” The debaters assumed that federal
>>     powers would be legitimate even though they were not enumerated
>>     so long as the powers fell appropriately within the national
>>     sphere. They removed the requirement in the Articles of
>>     Confederation that Congress have only the powers “expressly
>>     delegated” to it, and they defended that removal through the
>>     adoption of the Tenth Amendment 
>>
>>
>>
>> Calvin H. Johnson
>> Andrews & Kurth Centennial Professor of Law
>> The University of Texas School of Law
>> 727 E. Dean Keeton (26th) St.
>> Austin, TX 78705
>> (512) 232-1306 (voice)
>> FAX: (512) 232-2399
>> Website: http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/cv.pdf
>> _______________________________________________
>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
>> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. 
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>