I am not citing people's assertions for them. If you assert something you have to substantiate it.
The initial reason for which the Philadelphia convention was called was to amend the Articles; you are correct. However, the Constitution they drafted was not an amendment to the Articles. The delegates to the convention defied their mandate and created a new document to supplant the Articles. However, what the framers did in Philadelphia was not legally-binding. It was the ratifying conventions which actually gave the Constitution legal force, withdrew the ratifying States from the union under the Articles and placed them into a new union under the Constitution.
As soon as you bring some evidence to the table substantiating your argument it can be considered. You have not offered any records of any proceedings to demonstrate otherwise. They did not defy anything, the historical definition of amendment is an alteration or change. They proposed an amendment and under the Articles of Confederation the states (by whatever definition you want to use... body politic or state government) were required to unanimously ratify any amendments. If a ratifying convention convenes and the recorded minutes say we are gathered here today to discuss X you can't claim they were discussing Y.
No, that is not what I said. The nationalist theory of the Constitution holds that the aggregate people of the United States ratified the Constitution; that is incorrect. The compact theory of the Constitution correctly holds that the Constitution was ratified by the people of the several States; it was not ratified by state governments.
Once again, I will point out that there are multiple meanings of the word "state." You apparently fail to grasp this. The States did indeed ratify the Constitution, but it was not the state governments; it was the States as sovereign bodies politic. You can find this material covered in both Tom Woods' Nullification and Kevin Gutzman's The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.
I do not debate appeals to authority. If you assert it, you cite it. I am not failing to grasp anything. Are you reading what you write?
Pay extra close attention to this section.
To illustrate the complete and total absurdity of your argument, I will perform a simple substitution of your definitions in Article V...
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States Sovereign body politics, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States Sovereign body politics, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State Sovereign body politic, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Inserting your definitions of State and the fact the so called Sovereign body politic elects Senators under the 17th Amendment the State Sovereign body politic is not deprived of its equal suffrage.
this is simply about legal/historical legitimacy.
That is all I am debating.
Furthermore, the Union victory in the Civil War in no way impacts the veracity of my arguments; just because the Union won doesn't mean that they were right or that their actions were legitimate.
Bullshit. The whole legal existence of the colonies is based on force. Force is the only thing that commands and the Treaty of Paris was evidence of authority because force was no longer in dispute.
Since the Civil war was also a dispute of force you can not hold a different legal standard. You can make a moral argument and say it was northern aggression. It is hypocritical to recognize the legal existence of the colonies following the American revolution, which was based on force, and deny the outcome the civil war, which was also based on force. Like Indians... southern States are conquered people.
It seems that what you're trying to do, although you have not made your own position clear,
I made my position clear. States ratified the "Constitution" Amendment, States ratified the 17th Amendment, and both Amendments were a change to the federal political subdivision. My position is... if you voluntarily accept the authority of the State you have no argument because when you vote, you give power of attorney to the winning delegate representative who can contract away your liberty in your own name.
is turn this into a debate about the entire legitimacy of established governments and social contracts, and that is not a debate I intend to have. And if that is indeed your position, then you should have made that clear at the beginning rather than trying to argue from the position the Constitution was a usurpation of the Articles, because then you would have to also argue that the Articles were illegitimate as well.
No, the legitimacy of existing established governments are crystal clear. As previously stated force is the only thing that commands. The legitimacy of existing established governments are based on force.
Second, you can't cherry pick the conversation. If you are going to debate ratification, origin, and legitimacy of the Constitution you can not pick and choose which aspects of origin are on or off the table.
Have you ratified the Constitution?
Are you bound to the Constitution?
