Post by juachoerin on Jan 1, 2006 17:54:34 GMT
This isn't a joke; it's a possible interpretation of history which you may or may not agree with.
It's been said often, and has always been admitted by historians, that the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776 was only a demand for independence (a "letter to the King") and didn't in itself make the colonies independent; they became independent after they won the Revolutionary War—to be exact, on September 3, 1783, with the signing of the peace treaty in which they and England agreed on separation.
Not only do I agree with that, but I think it has (at least theoretically) certain further implications that are, if of no practical importance, at least highly surprising—and also amusing!
There was no U.S government until 1781, so if the colonies had become independent in 1776 they would have been thirteen separate nations for the intervening five years. The U.S. today uses the word "state" in a special sense; in general "state" means "nation", and that's all it meant in the Declaration of Independence. And "united" simply meant united in spirit, and in goals, and so on. (Note that the Declaration does not say that the colonies are "one nation" or "one state".)
In 1781, the states ratified the Articles of Confederation, thereby creating the Congress of the Confederation—the first U.S. government. It had existed (as the "Continental Congress") since 1774, but had no power to govern (i.e. the states and their people didn't have to obey it) until they gave it that power by ratifying the Articles. (Of course, it had written both the Articles and the Declaration, so neither document had any official authority when written; but they didn't need any. One became official when ratified, and the other was just a letter to the King.)
In 1787, a special convention wrote a new Constitution (the present one, minus the amendments) and, on its recommendation, the Congress of the Confederation submitted it to the states for ratification. It was ratified in 1788 and went into effect in 1789, thereby creating the present U.S. government.
This was similar to the usual practice of Congress today, and of the legislatures of states and nations in general; they appoint a committee to write a document, but not to adopt or act upon it—that is done afterwards by the legislature itself. There's nothing wrong with that procedure; but in this case it would seem to undermine the legitimacy of the whole government's formation.
The Constitution (unlike the two earlier documents) required the official sanction of the then–existing Congress before the states could even consider it (i.e. Congress had to vote and decide that it should be submitted to the states for ratification). The reason is that the Constitution would create a new government, and the old government had to agree to surrender power to the new one. So the Congress of the Confederation was taking an official action as a government—which it couldn't do unless it was a legitimate government.
But if the states derived their independence from the signing of the treaty in 1783, then until then they were still British colonies fighting for their independence, and all actions that they took on their own during that period were meaningless. (Of great historical consequence, perhaps—like the war itself—but without official validity.) And one of those actions was their ratification of the original Articles of Confederation, in 1781, which made that first Congress a government.
Therefore that Congress was never a government; therefore it didn't really submit the new Constitution to the states for ratification (because it had no power to do so); therefore the states didn't really ratify the Constitution (because it was never legally placed in their hands for consideration); therefore the Constitution has no validity. And, since the whole U.S. Government today derives its validity from the Constitution, we really have no Federal Government. The thirteen original states are still separate independent nations. And so are all the states created since then, because the government's actions claiming them as territories, and admitting them as states, had no validity either.
The Constitution and Government would be valid if the states had waited until the treaty was signed and then ratified the Articles (or just ratified them a second time after the treaty). It's too late for that now. But if it were actually considered necessary to legitimize the government now, it could be done. Each state sends a delegate to a committee, created by the states THEMSELVES rather than by the present illegitimate Congress; the committee takes the present Constitution with all its amendments, votes to approve it, and then submits it not to the illegitimate Congress but DIRECTLY to the states, and they ratify it again. Thus the states' governments, which are legitimate, would be doing the whole thing themselves. That would create the U.S. government, making everything legal.
Obviously, the issue is of no practical importance anyway; if someone ever tried to base any real claim or action on the theory that the government isn't legitimate—such as refusing to pay taxes, for example—they wouldn't get anywhere. (And I'm glad they wouldn't.) But, given the above historical facts (and assuming, for the sake of argument, that the colonies didn't become independent until the treaty was signed), do you agree that the rest of the above reasoning is technically correct? Or can you find any errors in it?
It's been said often, and has always been admitted by historians, that the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776 was only a demand for independence (a "letter to the King") and didn't in itself make the colonies independent; they became independent after they won the Revolutionary War—to be exact, on September 3, 1783, with the signing of the peace treaty in which they and England agreed on separation.
Not only do I agree with that, but I think it has (at least theoretically) certain further implications that are, if of no practical importance, at least highly surprising—and also amusing!
There was no U.S government until 1781, so if the colonies had become independent in 1776 they would have been thirteen separate nations for the intervening five years. The U.S. today uses the word "state" in a special sense; in general "state" means "nation", and that's all it meant in the Declaration of Independence. And "united" simply meant united in spirit, and in goals, and so on. (Note that the Declaration does not say that the colonies are "one nation" or "one state".)
In 1781, the states ratified the Articles of Confederation, thereby creating the Congress of the Confederation—the first U.S. government. It had existed (as the "Continental Congress") since 1774, but had no power to govern (i.e. the states and their people didn't have to obey it) until they gave it that power by ratifying the Articles. (Of course, it had written both the Articles and the Declaration, so neither document had any official authority when written; but they didn't need any. One became official when ratified, and the other was just a letter to the King.)
In 1787, a special convention wrote a new Constitution (the present one, minus the amendments) and, on its recommendation, the Congress of the Confederation submitted it to the states for ratification. It was ratified in 1788 and went into effect in 1789, thereby creating the present U.S. government.
This was similar to the usual practice of Congress today, and of the legislatures of states and nations in general; they appoint a committee to write a document, but not to adopt or act upon it—that is done afterwards by the legislature itself. There's nothing wrong with that procedure; but in this case it would seem to undermine the legitimacy of the whole government's formation.
The Constitution (unlike the two earlier documents) required the official sanction of the then–existing Congress before the states could even consider it (i.e. Congress had to vote and decide that it should be submitted to the states for ratification). The reason is that the Constitution would create a new government, and the old government had to agree to surrender power to the new one. So the Congress of the Confederation was taking an official action as a government—which it couldn't do unless it was a legitimate government.
But if the states derived their independence from the signing of the treaty in 1783, then until then they were still British colonies fighting for their independence, and all actions that they took on their own during that period were meaningless. (Of great historical consequence, perhaps—like the war itself—but without official validity.) And one of those actions was their ratification of the original Articles of Confederation, in 1781, which made that first Congress a government.
Therefore that Congress was never a government; therefore it didn't really submit the new Constitution to the states for ratification (because it had no power to do so); therefore the states didn't really ratify the Constitution (because it was never legally placed in their hands for consideration); therefore the Constitution has no validity. And, since the whole U.S. Government today derives its validity from the Constitution, we really have no Federal Government. The thirteen original states are still separate independent nations. And so are all the states created since then, because the government's actions claiming them as territories, and admitting them as states, had no validity either.
The Constitution and Government would be valid if the states had waited until the treaty was signed and then ratified the Articles (or just ratified them a second time after the treaty). It's too late for that now. But if it were actually considered necessary to legitimize the government now, it could be done. Each state sends a delegate to a committee, created by the states THEMSELVES rather than by the present illegitimate Congress; the committee takes the present Constitution with all its amendments, votes to approve it, and then submits it not to the illegitimate Congress but DIRECTLY to the states, and they ratify it again. Thus the states' governments, which are legitimate, would be doing the whole thing themselves. That would create the U.S. government, making everything legal.
Obviously, the issue is of no practical importance anyway; if someone ever tried to base any real claim or action on the theory that the government isn't legitimate—such as refusing to pay taxes, for example—they wouldn't get anywhere. (And I'm glad they wouldn't.) But, given the above historical facts (and assuming, for the sake of argument, that the colonies didn't become independent until the treaty was signed), do you agree that the rest of the above reasoning is technically correct? Or can you find any errors in it?