if the People of the United States did not want their Union under their new constitution, no longer wanted their Union to be perpetual under its new constitution, then they would have to be as clear in rejecting it under their new gov't, as they had in accepting it under the old
If I understand you right, you are indicating agreement with what I stated, as far as...
If perpetual Union was the goal of the AoCs (as the Articles clearly indicate), and the Constitution is designed "to form a more perfect Union,” then of course the original objective must remain. And certainly there can be no logic that it was otherwise unless the Framers specifically indicated that that goal, important enough to call out in the AoCs, was being jettisoned for some reason.
In addition, I would say the Framers communicated exactly the opposite idea in their official letter:
"
In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union..."
And in fact in the Constitution itself.
"...to ourselves and our Posterity..."
However, I don't believe we need
"perpetual Union" (in the AoCs), the absence of any statement that perpetuity was being abandoned (Const'l Convention, state ratification debates, etc.),
"consolidation of our Union" (official letter), or
"our Posterity" or
"more perfect" Union to understand the Union established via the Constitution is perpetual. The Constitution is a fundamental law ("supreme Law of the Land"). It carries the force of law upon all Americans, because it was established by the American people as a sovereign whole (only sovereignty can make positive laws). And like all laws, it is inherently perpetual; it remains in force until repealed by the same authority that enacted it, in this case the sovereign
"People of the United States of America." A fundamental law is therefore 1) compulsory and, 2) inherently perpetual. The state constitutions, which were also fundamental laws established by the whole, sovereign people of each state, instituted perpetual political states. In this regard, the Constitution is no different than the state constitutions.
The government of the Union changed, not the Union itself.
Here's where we disagree (to a point anyway). A change in government IS a change in the Union. A change in government can be rather insignificant (a state, being a constitutional republic, replaces an existing constitution with a new one, and remains a constitutional republic) or monumental (a confederation founded upon a treaty establishes a fundamental law, thereby becoming a federation). A change in the BASIC FORM of government is a significant change in the polity (in this case the Union).
Chase ruled that the Permanent Union of the AoC, was the same permanent Union under its new gov't of the Constitution.
That's not actually what he ruled. He ruled that the more perfect Union was as perpetual as that which existed under the AoCs. In fact Chase notes the changes in the Union when he traces its history.
"It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union'."
Certainly you would not say a union of colonies is the same as a union of sovereign states. Nor is an ad-hoc union the same as an official union. Nor is a more perfect union the same as a less perfect union. It began as an ad-hoc union of colonies resisting what they perceived were constitutional violations, it then became a union of declared sovereign states fighting for independence (still ad-hoc). It then took definite, official form under the AoCs as a confederation. And finally, it was reestablished on a completely different basis, a fundamental law, as the first federation in the history of the world. These are substantial, important changes that resulted, as intended, in substantial, important changes to both the Union and its government.
However, even I note these as changes to THE Union. It was the same group of colonies/states (until they began adding states, as any growing nation stealing land from the natives will do). Whether stated or not, the basic goals remained the same (
"Justice . . . domestic Tranquility . . . common defence . . . general Welfare . . . the Blessings of Liberty"). There are different aspects to the Union, including both aspects that remained consistent and aspects that changed significantly. This is how the Framers could speak of a continuous Union (
"the consolidation of our Union") at the same time they spoke of forming a new Union (
"in Order to form a more perfect Union"). However, even if there had been a slight change in the makeup of the Union, this does not amount to creating a WHOLE NEW Union, because elements that are just as vital and important are retained throughout..
The Union of the DoI was he same Union of the AoC and the Constitution. A Perpetual Union had only to be proclaimed once, just as its rejection by a future general need only be once, no matter how many gofficial) or a'ts are formed between the two events.
And here is another substantial, important change. The Union was not perpetual until it was declared as such (actually, it could be considered perpetual as of July 4, 1776; the very first draft of the AoCs was made by Franklin and presented to Congress in late 1775, at which time it was set aside; I believe that draft indicated the Union would continue until the colonies' issues with Britain were resolved, otherwise it would be perpetual; so unofficially, the need for perpetuity went hand-in-hand with any bid for independence).
Moderator
Thread Medic
