Click Here Watch another video for more information
When the delegates of the states met in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation they Union of States already had a Constitution. The Articles of Confederation was the Supreme Law of the Land and could not be altered, amended or abolished with the unanimous consent of all 13 of the states.
Only 12 of the 13 states participated in the Convention which made it an unconstitutional gathering. The delegates decided that only 9 or the 12 states in attendance could ratify the new Constitution.
According to the provisions of the Articles of Confederation
in order to change the number of states required for ratification it would require the unanimous support of all of the states. So you can see that the Constitution that replaced the Articles of Confederation was and is unconstitutional.
It is morally repugnant for nine of the states to be able to impose their will on the states which may refuse to ratify the Constitution.
In my opinion the Constitution does not need to be amended as much as it needs to be enforced as it was written. People who are allowed to vote need to pass a Civics Test in order to vote and candidates need to be demonstrate that they know and understand the Constitution and the principles of liberty.
The idea of having a Convention to amend the Constitution would be a dangerous proposition if the delegates were selected by politicians and the political parties. I support the idea that each of the delegates should be elected by the people in the Congressional Districts.
Replies