Is any part of the Articles of Confederation still valid?

[Sims2789]

I read the Constitution (minus the amendments) and didn't find anything directly repealing the Articles of Confederation. Even though the Constitution says it only required 9 to be ratified, amending the Articles of Confederation required all 13 states. So, if the Constitution was an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, the the Articles are still in force except as amended by the Constitution.

Since the Constitution changed almost everything, this means very little. However, I know of at least one part of the Articles that is still valid if the Articles weren't repealed.

Article 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.

The Constitution has its own provision on admitting new states, but it seems that parts in the Articles that aren't overriden/overlapped are still valid. For example, we changed the part about how states are admitted but we never removed the special exemption for Canada (which then was Quebec and Ontario).

I can also see how the Constitution does override this exception anyway: It states new requirements for admitting states and these new requirements don't give Canada a special exemption. If the Constitution's provision on admitting states were repealed, however, and if the Articles where not amended are still valid, then Canada's exemption would still be valid even if the Constitution currently overrides the Articles on it because we'd revert back to the old way of admitting states since the Articles weren't repealed; the Constitution amended them to effectively made the Articles invalid.

 

[GenMarshall]

The Articles of Confederation is no longer valid thanks to the Constitution.

 

[Sims2789]

I did find this online, from here:

* “Engagements entered into” where Engagements is capitalized means that the provisions of the
original Articles of Confederation remain valid against the United States and in force except as
amended by the revised Articles of the 1789 Constitution. This further means that the central
government of the United States shall continue to be bound and restricted accordingly according to
the Articles of Confederation as amended.

which, if correct, means that the Constitution explicitly says that the Articles, except where amended by the Constitution, are still valid. It seems like a murky interpretation though, since because the Articles don't say that amendments to them automatically invalidate previous articles then there's no need to explicitly state that they're still valid. Plus "Engagements" sounds more like treaties and soforth.

 

[Sims2789]

There was a case in the 1920's (US v. Wheeler) where the Articles were used to set precedent for Article IV of the Constitution.

 

[Berzerker]

all 13 states ratified the Constitution

 

[Sims2789]

all 13 states ratified the Constitution

I read the original Constitution and didn't find anything that directly repeals the Articles of Confederation, unless the states just decided to without regard to the Articles' provisions and then wrote another supreme law. I'm wondering if they did that or if technically the Constitution is an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, and therefore only got ratified when Rhode Island did in 1790.

 

[ravensfire]

With the acceptance of the Constitution by all thirteen states (1790, according to Wikipedia), the Articles of Confederation were replaced.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Berzerker]

I'm wondering if they did that or if technically the Constitution is an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, and therefore only got ratified when Rhode Island did in 1790.

They would have called it an amendment then.

If this were true the Constitution would say so explicitly - this Constitution amends the AoC... The repetition of powers suggests a new contract, not an amendment to the old contract.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

The Constitution is entirely new. "We the People" formed a new government -- they didn't even go to the colonies or the Confederation, the source of sovereignty was "The People".

Obviously there were things like the "engagements entered into" that the new U.S. government wanted to carry over -- things like treaties with other nations -- that were incorporated, and we refer to the Articles of Confederation in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, but it's completely different.

Cleo

 

[Berzerker]

good question though, if we had been more attached to the AoC it might have only been amended but I think they saw it more as a temporary deal to get things going during the revolution.

 

[bhsup]

Missouri has had 4 Constitutions. Each new one totally replaced the old one.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Berzerker,

They thought the Articles of Confederation would work, but it turned out that they didn't. The federal government under the Articles of Confederation had no power to compel the states to do anything, and its Congress was effectively impotent. Specifically with respect to international relations, the Confederation of States just couldn't function. So the Framers got together and wrote up a new document with greatly increased federal power and strong anti-majoritarian protections.

Cleo

 

[lutzj]

I'm pretty sure the US technically became a different country when the Constitution was ratified. However, there are still some legacies of the America 1.0; the Northwest Ordinance being one of the most important.

They would have called it an amendment then.

Amendments didn't exist under the Articles.

 

[ravensfire]

Amendments didn't exist under the Articles.

I'm pretty sure they did, but they had to be ratified by ALL states to take effect. This made changing the AoC nigh-impossible.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Berzerker]

Amendments didn't exist under the Articles.

article 13 deals with amending the AoC

But Sims is right, it took all 13 states to amend the AoC and it was in effect until 1790 when the last ratified the Constitution. But the Constitutional Convention said only 9 of the 12 states attending (R.I. declined the invitation) were enough to start all over with a new Constitution and the 9th state ratified it in 1788, so which was in effect?

 

[The Yankee]

That those pushing for what would be the Constitution had to call for the Convention under the auspices of amending the Articles of Confederation to get states to send delegates suggests that the Constitution would be a replacement and not an addendum.

Also, that there was a new government being elected under the Constitution before all 13 states ratified the Constitution would suggest that the Articles were thrown out the window.

 

[lutzj]

article 13 deals with amending the AoC

But Sims is right, it took all 13 states to amend the AoC and it was in effect until 1790 when the last ratified the Constitution. But the Constitutional Convention said only 9 of the 12 states attending (R.I. declined the invitation) were enough to start all over with a new Constitution and the 9th state ratified it in 1788, so which was in effect?

That's one of those parts of history that doesn't matter.

 

[Sims2789]

That those pushing for what would be the Constitution had to call for the Convention under the auspices of amending the Articles of Confederation to get states to send delegates suggests that the Constitution would be a replacement and not an addendum.

Also, that there was a new government being elected under the Constitution before all 13 states ratified the Constitution would suggest that the Articles were thrown out the window.

Yes, laws passed between 1789 and when the last state ratified it would certainly be a problem if the Articles were still in effect.

I think saying that the Constitution comes from the people, not the states, is a good way of looking at it, and makes it legal except under the Articles of Confederation.

 

[Swedishguy]

The Constitution is obsolete. Face it people. The US needs a new set of laws.

 

[Berzerker]

we dont pay much attention to the Constitution these days