FW: United We Stand, Divdided We Fall. Why the AFs voted yes.

[Francisco Martin]

In the case of Rhode Island and North Carolina, Congress decided to treat them as foreign states. See Act of Sept. 16, 1789, 1 Stat. 69 (North Carolina and Rhode Island goods imported into U.S. considered to be goods imported from foreign state, country, or kingdom).  However, since the NC & RI were still part of the United States notwithstanding their initial failure to ratify the Constitution, the probably would be treated like Turkey is treated by the European Union.  Although Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe, they are not a member of the EU.  Furthermore, those states that had ratified the Constitution still would be bound by the Articles in their relationship to NC & RI per the Supremacy Clause, and RI & NC could not defeat the object and purpose of the Constitution by undertaking any positive act in contravention of the Constitution's object and purpose as set forth in the Preamble, per the law of treaties.  How this would have played out in particular cases!
  is an interesting question.

Francisco Forrest Martin
President
Rights International, The Center for International Human Rights Law, Inc.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: 
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Sent: 10/20/2005 11:50:49 AM 
Subject: Re: FW: United We Stand, Divdided We Fall. Why the AFs voted yes. 


In a message dated 10/19/2005 10:26:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ricenter at igc.org writes:
Another reason for why the Framers settled on the nine-state rule is that it was the same rule in the Articles of Confederation for entering into treaties, and the Constitution was such a treaty.  Congress and the Framers respectively could avoid the unanimity rule for amending the Articles or ratifying the Constitution by entering into a new treaty that supplemented or displaced the states' obligations under the Articles.
Although "if" is a child's game, if Virginia (or any other States) had rejected the Constitution, what would the nature of the relationship have been between Constitution-ratifying parties to the Articles of Confederation and Constitution-rejecting parties to the Articles of Confederation?  Would this be akin to a "partnership with professional associations" kind of construct for law firms?  Would the ratification by the ninth state had any dissolving effect on the earlier ratified Articles of Confederation?  References to reading in this area would be appreciated if anyone has them.

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051020/aa430648/attachment.htm