Restricted The meaning of "Perpetual" in The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union

[John Fenton]

However, the Necessary and Proper clause allows the federal government to make all necessary and proper laws for carrying out only its enumerated tasks listed in the Constitution.

Au contrarie read McCulloch vs Maryland again. The power to create a national bank was not enumerated nor was the power for a state to tax it against federal authority.

 

[Potomac Pride]

I have read the case already but thanks for the suggestion. McCulloch vs. Maryland established a legal precedent that the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers to implement the Constitution's express or enumerated powers in order to establish a functional national government. Chief Justice Marshall supported his decision by invoking the Necessary and Proper Clause, which permits Congress to seek an objective while it exercised its enumerated powers as long as that objective is not forbidden by the Constitution. Although the right to create a bank isn't specifically mentioned, the Constitution delegates to Congress the power to tax and spend. A bank is a proper resource to allow the government to collect and disburse revenue. The opinion stated that Congress has implied powers but they must be related to the text of the Constitution but do not need to be specifically mentioned within the text. The Supreme Court also ruled that Maryland could not tax the bank since it was a violation of the Supremacy Clause because it was an attempt by a state to interfere with a federal institution.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

The United States already existed and was already a "Perpetual Union". The Union of the United States of America was the same Union as the Union of the Constitution (the Constitution says so if you read it closely, and the Supreme Court has continuously maintained that it is the same Union). There was no particular need to mention the word "perpetual" again.

It would be more logical to argue that if you wanted to declare that the Union was no longer "perpetual", then it would be necessary to actually say it was no longer "perpetual". Since they said no such thing, the most likely inference would be that the Union remained "perpetual" just as the Supreme Court has said.

Finish out the "perpetual union" declaration. There are now 50 states...strictly adhering to your claim of "perpetual union" only the 13 states listed after "perpetual union" would be bound by it....and under the compact theory...if one state can do a thing...all states can also do it.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

Then it follows they are no longer able to use the Constitution as some form of excuse to secede nor claim any protection under it's articles when seceding, correct?

True, they no longer used the Constitution. By the way, the constitution is mute on the issue of secession. Arguing constitutionality of secession is from a negative in either instance...for or against

Glad to see you recognize the hard fact that it took "people" to create their supreme and sovereign nation, and not a piece of ground that could do nothing without them, such as a "state."

And the majority of those "people" seemed to think unilateral secession fell within the federal sphere, not in a lump of ground called a "state.".

"a piece of ground like a state" umm the federal government is on a piece of ground...called DC.

you use "perpetual" from the AOC but ignore other parts of the AOC notably....
"Articles of Confederation
lI Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

...why?

 

[Patrick Sulley]

The Supremacy Clause, is an enumerated power, that no state can, of their own volition, override, because there is no source of law or authority available(i.e. stagte constitutions or laws) for such an action.

Questions of the Constitutionality of Federal Laws, are also provided for, and, enumerated, in the Constitution. All aggrieved citizens or States, who have a case can avail themselves of that power, if they choose. But, it seems to me the South was very rigorous, in avoiding their case to the Courts; I, myself, believe they avoided it, because they knew they did not have a legal case to present under the enumerated powers of The Constitution

going to a court is reactive..not proactive...what recourse would they have attempted in court when nothing was pending? they had to secede first then get sued. but instead they were invaded. Court resolution was not an option.

"I, myself, believe they avoided it, because they knew they did not have a legal case to present under the enumerated powers of The Constitution"....did the union avoid taking Davis to trial for the same reason?

Union general: "fire at will"
Union soldiers: "which one is Will?"
Will: "MAN, SCREW YOU GUYS!"

 

[Patrick Sulley]

the constitution was adopted to achieve a "MORE perfect union" as opposed to a less perfect union. that allows for more states. these states accepted the constitution in order to join the union. the AoC declared this union to be perpetual and as such there is no reason to restate it. it is perpetual.
the question is or was , if the founding fathers did not intend it to be what it was , perpetual, why didn't they say so and provide a mechanism to secede.
there is an argument that ALL states must agree to any secession. the confederacy was not ALL of the states and a state could not unilaterally secede . i disagree though. there was no mechanism for ALL states to allow any state to secede.
so those parts of the AoC that were changed were stated and those that were not were already in force.

perpetual
Use the adjective perpetual to describe something that never ends or changes.

perpetual
"Use the adjective perpetual to describe something that never ends or changes". ..."or Never changes"? ummm how did it "change" from 13 to 50 then? by your own admission, perpetual means unchanging....so by definition this union is NOT perpetual.

Again, even if "perpetual" and if we are talking "union" ...member states leaving or joining would not effect "perpetuity" anyway as "union" is more of a concept than some tangible thing.

"there is an argument that ALL states must agree to any secession." Actually, this isnt true. to amend the constitution requires 3/4 states...not all. it is ...in theory...possible to amend the constitution to allow secession....as the constitution is the "law of the land"

 

[Patrick Sulley]

perpetual
Use the adjective perpetual to describe something that never ends or changes. ..."Never changes"? ummm how did it "change" from 13 to 50?

true, there is no need to waste words on something already stated and in force. the union was already bound into perpetuity . the constitution did not create a new union but made that union better. their deliberations empowered the federal gov't with more power, like creating sources of revenue and the like. it changed the nature of the union. as a confederation under the AoC the union of sovereign states , perpetuity was required to be stated in the document. with the adoption of the constitution the states gave up sovereignity and formed a federation and made the federal gov't superme via the supereme court and chief executive although it was the same union . perpetuity is perpetual until or unless it is revoked, in this case, by a majority of the people of all states which disregards the definition of perpetual. even so the majority did not revoke that perpetuity .
The 18th clause , the "Necessary and Proper Clause" , was added to the Constitution by the Committee on Detail without any previous discussion at all, and it was not the subject of debate in Committee, either. That was because the intent and wording of the Section was not to enumerate Congress's powers at all, but instead to provide an open-ended grant to Congress to "legislate in all cases for the general interests of the Union, and also to those to which the States are separately incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation."
Martin H. Kelly

ThoughtCo.

the AOC didnt create a "union" it created a "federation", the Constitution created a "Union" and didnt make it perpetual.

"The Articles of Confederation created a confederation in the United States. A confederation is a government in which the state government, not national, have dominant power".

"The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789."

the AOC did mention perpetual union but not “indissoluble” union...but it STRICTLY said "perpetual union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia."...nowhere did it say...and potential future states from territories or land purchased.

Since several of you are hard line to "perpetual union ..." you should add the rest of that declaration. "... between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia."

So, the "perpetual union"(not “indissoluble” Union) as stated in the AOC pertains only to "the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia".

My question is Since "perpetual"(not “indissoluble”) is supposedly "never ending" and "never changing" why wouldnt any state not herein listed be able to secede? since they are not included in the "perpetual union" as described to by the AOC. it seems you guys want to cherry pick portions of the AOC and ignore other portions.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

If you are correct in your above opinion, then what was all that shooting about from 1861 - 1865?

the shooting about? i will answer your question with a question. did Lincoln invade the South to free the slaves? No. In his March 4, 1861 Inaugural Speech he reassures the South that he has no plans to do anything about slavery in the South. He said that he didn't have the legal right -nor did he have the inclination to stop slavery.

Then, in that same speech, he threatens the Southern states with blood shed if they thought they could avoid collecting the duties and imposts (the tariff). Lincoln had 16,000 men in his military and 7 states had seceded so far. He needed 75,000 more men to enforce the collection of the tariff. He got his recruits after he lured (masterfully, i might add) the South into looking like lunatics firing upon his resupply ship/ships to Ft. Sumter (with military escort).

In his July 4, 1861 speech he states," It sought only to hold the public places and property, not already wrested from the Government, and to collect the revenue; .....relying for the rest, on time, discussion, and the ballot-box...... It promised a continuance of the mails, at government expense, to the very people who were resisting the government; and it gave repeated pledges against any disturbance to any of the people, or any of their rights. Of all that which a president might constitutionally, and justifiably, do in such a case, everything was foreborne, without which, it was believed possible to keep the government on foot."

Basically, Lincoln was willing to negotiate with the South about everything except the collection of the tariff which was vital to the govt.'s revenue.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

The people of each state accepted the fact of the Constitution's supremacy over state constitutions ad Laws, which means, to leave the Union a state(or, any subgroup of them) cannot overthrow or violate any of the expressed powers of the Constitution, which is impossible, so it must be done, if, at all, through the consent of the other states of the Union.

problem is...you dont need all of the people in all of the states...just 3/4. defeats your argument as 3/4 of a whole is a "subgroup" of the whole.

 

[John Fenton]

I have read the case already but thanks for the suggestion. McCulloch vs. Maryland established a legal precedent that the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers to implement the Constitution's express or enumerated powers in order to establish a functional national government. Chief Justice Marshall supported his decision by invoking the Necessary and Proper Clause, which permits Congress to seek an objective while it exercised its enumerated powers as long as that objective is not forbidden by the Constitution. Although the right to create a bank isn't specifically mentioned, the Constitution delegates to Congress the power to tax and spend. A bank is a proper resource to allow the government to collect and disburse revenue. The opinion stated that Congress has implied powers but they must be related to the text of the Constitution but do not need to be specifically mentioned within the text. The Supreme Court also ruled that Maryland could not tax the bank since it was a violation of the Supremacy Clause because it was an attempt by a state to interfere with a federal institution.

Union is within the text and so congress had the implied power to maintain the union in perpetuity and the states did not have the power to interfere with the union which would include secession , the right to which is not mentioned in the text and do not relate to the text.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

Union is within the text and so congress had the implied power to maintain the union in perpetuity and the states did not have the power to interfere with the union which would include secession , the right to which is not mentioned in the text and do not relate to the text.

you are equating “indissoluble” Union with perpetual union and indissoluble is not mentioned nor alluded to....

much has been said that a union of perpetuity already existed because of the AOC....if so, what would have happened if New York, RI or Virginia didnt ratify the constitution? i will tell you, the Perpetual union would have failed. ergo, it was neither perpetual nor a union until AFTER the constitution was ratified....only then was it a true union...and one that exists today.

if i am not mistaken....you only needed 9 states to continue the union. So unless enough member states left that reduced the number below 9...the union remained perpetual.

 

[John Fenton]

the AOC didnt create a "union" it created a "federation", the Constitution created a "Union" and didnt make it perpetual.

"The Articles of Confederation created a confederation in the United States. A confederation is a government in which the state government, not national, have dominant power".

"The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789."

the AOC did mention perpetual union but not “indissoluble” union...but it STRICTLY said "perpetual union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia."...nowhere did it say...and potential future states from territories or land purchased.

Since several of you are hard line to "perpetual union ..." you should add the rest of that declaration. "... between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia."

So, the "perpetual union"(not “indissoluble” Union) as stated in the AOC pertains only to "the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia".

My question is Since "perpetual"(not “indissoluble”) is supposedly "never ending" and "never changing" why wouldnt any state not herein listed be able to secede? since they are not included in the "perpetual union" as described to by the AOC. it seems you guys want to cherry pick portions of the AOC and ignore other portions.

XI.
Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.
XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the dissoluble especially we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

Please explain the difference between perpetual union and indissoluble union.
Definition of indissoluble
: not dissoluble especially : incapable of being annulled, undone, or broken : PERMANENT
The AOC created a union of sovereign states (confederation), the Constitution changed the nature of that union to one of partially self governing states under a central federal government (federation).
The 11th article made provision for admittance of new states in which they would be part of the governing body of the AOC and subject to article 13.


perpetual
adjective
continuing or enduring forever; everlasting.
lasting an indefinitely long time:

the constitution can be changed. so could the AoC. disolving the perpetual nature of the union must be agreed to by all states (AoC) or by amendment (constitution).

 

[Patrick Sulley]

The nationalists love the word perpetual out of the articles, however much of the rest they dont care for, not centralizing enough.

AGREED...And they dont finish the statement...there is a reason. let's look at the entire declaration..."Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia." So any state entering the "union" not name therein...is not a part of the "perpetual union".

 

[Patrick Sulley]

You certainly are wanting your cake and eat it too...You simply cannot claim a legal definition for something that was assumed or was a concept. A legal definition implies something that is concrete in usage...actually stated. We today can only speculate why the founders chose not to use the word perpetual. It's certainly interesting that they didn't, though I am not convinced it was not intentionally left out as I alluded to in my prior post.

There are a lot of issues with this idea of a 'perpetual union'. Consider:

1. It only took nine of 13 states to ratify the new form of government, not a unanimous vote which the prior 'Union' required from its legislature.
2. Had Virginia and New York not ratified the Constitution, it was pretty clear the document would have failed without those states.
3. Both North Carolina and Rhode Island had not even ratified the Constitution when Washington first took office, thus they were 'out of the Union' during that time.
4. In your own misapplied use of the legal definition, you neglect to consider that a later end time could be constructed...there is nothing to prevent that from occurring. It actually happens all the time in real life.
5. The Constitution replaced the AOC. Once New Hampshire (in actually when New York and Virginia ratified) consented to the Constitution, the AOC was officially null and void. Thus, all framework related to that form of government was ended. There was no carry-over, no addition to the AOC. It completed erased the AOC.

well said. additionally, perpetual defined is also "never changing". If this "union" was "perpetual" then it would have remained at 13 states....also,they conveniently only put up the first part of the declaration. in its entirety it says "perpetual union" between a select group of 13 states... "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."...if you add to it (change it) it no longer is "perpetual.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

"Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. "

when arguing "perpetual union" why do you guys leave out the rest of the declaration? could it be because it is specific in who the articles are referring to? 13 select states. Perpetual defined means "never changing". Adding to it is as destructive to the definition of perpetual as subtracting from it.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

XI.
Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.
XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the dissoluble especially we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

Please explain the difference between perpetual union and indissoluble union.
Definition of indissoluble
: not dissoluble especially : incapable of being annulled, undone, or broken : PERMANENT
The AOC created a union of sovereign states (confederation), the Constitution changed the nature of that union to one of partially self governing states under a central federal government (federation).
The 11th article made provision for admittance of new states in which they would be part of the governing body of the AOC and subject to article 13.


perpetual
adjective
continuing or enduring forever; everlasting.
lasting an indefinitely long time:

the constitution can be changed. so could the AoC. disolving the perpetual nature of the union must be agreed to by all states (AoC) or by amendment (constitution).

thanks for your response.
you entirely missed the point. You defined "perpetual" as "never changing", You also didnt..as most people do...finish the declaration of "articles of confederation and perpetual union...BETWEEN...etc etc.
Not only did the AOC clearly state with whom the "perpetual union" was between, you supplied a then and now amended definition of perpetual. Previously you correctly defined "perpetual" as "never changing".

So two issues defeat your assertion.
1) The AOC was restricted to 13 states by declaration.
2) The definition, as you originally provided, of "perpetual Union", also restricted it to 13 states as it can not, by definition, change.

If it can change...its not, by definition, perpetual.

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

Also, i didnt ask the difference between perpetual and dissoluble. I said the later was not referenced in the constitution but would have better defined what you incorrectly assert.

You then further bury your argument by not knowing that all states need not agree to change the constitution...only 3/4 of them do.

"the constitution can be changed. so could the AoC. disolving (sic) the perpetual nature of the union must be agreed to by ALL (my emphasis) states (AoC) or by amendment (constitution)."

 

[Tin cup]

You left out, in your opinion.

Seems to me, a LOT of thought went into the US Constitution. Words matter. The words chosen were carefully considered.

Personally, I find it interesting they intentionally left out the word, perpetual. Plenty of other folks felt the same way, as this was not decided practically, until spring 1865, & legally until 1869. This assumes Texas v. White as the "authority" on the legality.

Either way, most folks realize our Union is perpetual today. That wasn't necessarily the case in 1860.

You forgot to add "in my opinion"!
I'd say a big majority thought the Union was "Perpetual", they helped whip the rebellion into submission.

Kevin Dally

 

[OpnCoronet]

going to a court is reactive..not proactive...what recourse would they have attempted in court when nothing was pending? they had to secede first then get sued. but instead they were invaded. Court resolution was not an option.
"I, myself, believe they avoided it, because they knew they did not have a legal case to present under the enumerated powers of The Constitution"....did the union avoid taking Davis to trial for the same reason?

I myself,agree that the most likely eplanation for secessionists avoiding adjudicatiing the right of secession(and, thereby, the theory of Staes Right under the Constitutio ) because under the expressed powers of the Organic Law of the Land, they had no case.

I am, of course, no lawyer, but, it is my understanding a recourse to the courts can be either proactive or reactive, accordiing to the case.

 

[unionblue]

True, they no longer used the Constitution. By the way, the constitution is mute on the issue of secession. Arguing constitutionality of secession is from a negative in either instance...for or against

As Chief Justice Roger Taney stated there is no form or mode for unilateral secession to be applied via the Constitution. It does not exist and therefore cannot be justified on constitutional grounds.

"a piece of ground like a state" umm the federal government is on a piece of ground...called DC.

No, the federal government is made up of the people of the United States chosen representatives.

you use "perpetual" from the AOC but ignore other parts of the AOC notably....
"Articles of Confederation
lI Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

You must have me confused with another poster as I have never stated such as far as I can recall. Could you direct me to a post I have made where I have stated the above?

...why?

Didn't say it or recall saying it, so I cannot answer your "why."

Unionblue

 

[CW Buff]

The Supremacy Clause is not a blanket statement that implies the federal government and its laws are always supreme over the states. In essence, it is a rule that specifies certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law, but when federal law conflicts with the Constitution that law is null and void. The Supremacy Clause does not apply to any law that the federal government makes which is not pursuant to its constitutional powers. Those powers are enumerated in the Constitution but if the federal government creates laws outside its enumerated powers, those laws are void. The States are not bound by federal acts that are not made in pursuance of the Constitution.

So far we are in agreement, and I said nothing contrary to the above. In fact, my focus has been on the Constitution, and I haven't even brought US laws and treaties into it.

And of course, there are only two parties authorized to declare a law or part of a law or an act of the Fed unconstitutional and therefore "void." The first is SCOTUS, and the second are the sovereign people of the US.

The Constitution does not require a state to remain in the Union and it also does not expressly forbid secession either.

The SC does both. I don't know how much more crystal clear it can be, especially when you cut away the irrelevant (to my point) words:

“This Constitution . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land, . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Shall (auxiliary verb) - 3b—used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory.

I mean, do secession-minded members want to pretend that unilateral secession complies with the SC? Hey, if you're version of unilateral secession complies with the supremacy of the Constitution, go ahead. But those of us living in the real world understand quite well that unilateral secession is the unilateral act of a state to overthrow the supremacy of the Constitution. It is the most extreme example of exactly what the SC precludes.

The Constitution . . . does not expressly forbid secession either.

And this is exactly the wrong way to look at a fundamental law. Backwards in fact. A fundamental law is the manner in which a society of free, self-governing people establish their political society. They are the only ones who have any unspecified powers over their constitution and, by extension, the political society and government they thereby establish. And that sovereign power is exercised, as always within such a society, by majority rule. Everyone else has only what specific powers over the people's constitution/political society/government that they expressly delegate via their constitution (like the power of Congress to admit new states). By this simple fact of constitutions alone, the Constitution creates an indissoluble Union, as the only legal transfers of sovereignty are consensual ones, the only way for any state or states to legally regain the sovereignty they surrendered via ratifying the Constitution is by the consent of the sovereign people, which is no where granted to anyone in the Constitution. The effect of national sovereignty is the consolidation of the Union. These points were described in the Federal Conventions official letter:

"It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. . . . 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, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence."[/QUOTE]