In the United States you do. Our rights are not defined by law and instead, are described in the Declaration of Independence. A law that violates those rights, violates our own laws, which are only allowed and created because they are supposed to protect those rights. Our country and its laws are founded on disobeying laws! The founders illustrated this for us very well as AS mentions below.
Not strictly true. The Declaration of Independence is not codified law. The Constitution is another story. But even then, it’s not breaking the law that’s truly at work here. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any lesser law in conflict with it is definitionally null and void and of no legal effect (although the courts have made a hash of that one; because they did break the law). Our country was founded on breaking British laws (some of which were in contradiction to their own Bill of Rights), but our laws were not.
But the Constitution doesn’t claim to create rights, and echoes the Declaration that certain unalienable rights are undeclared.
We broke the law to write the Constitution.
Indirectly. The British had already conceded our independence before the Constitution was written.
True, FC! AS’s reading of ACTUAL history is sadly lacking. We were already an independent nation when the Constitution was written and passed…recognized as such by EVERY European nation–INCLUDING Great Britain.
Completely false. The United States of America was already an independent nation, and altered it’s own laws through a transparent democratic process, where input from all enfranchised parties was duly weighed into the final outcome.
EDIT: Sheesh, spell check, how did you miss that typo…?
No, I mean the Articles of Confederation. We broke our own system to usher in another.
The system was judged to be too broken already to serve the needs of the states or the people, and it was replaced through a legitimate representative process, requiring ratification at both the convention and state levels.
Quoting the Articles Of Confederation: “The united states in congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of congress, to be denominated “A Committee of the States,” and to consist of one delegate from each state; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the united states under their direction…”
Completely legit, Slim.
But the Philadelphia convention was not empowered to do what it did.
It was given authorization to convene “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” Not replacing them.
The convention also changed the ratification process, completely running past Congress and state legislatures, and authorized ratification with just a three-quarters majority, where the Articles required unanimity.
You can add on justifications after-the-fact for why these things were necessary, but that’s what they are, after-the-fact. You broke the law first to get there.
The convention drafted a plan of government. It was not enacted until it was approved by the state legislatures. There was never any serious contention (EDIT: among the convention delegates, that is) over whether to replace the existing government, only over what form the new one should take.
Hmm. I don’t recall learning about any formal congressional objections. No resolutions or articles of objection passed? I don’t know everything, thoigh, so i might have missed it…
So which states didn’t ratify? We’re non-consenting states to be compelled to join? I mean, I don’t see any language providing for compelling states to remain after they have ratified, so it’s even harder to contort forced acceptance from the language.
No, the legislatures were left out. State Conventions rather were used to ratify the Constitution.
Which again, isn’t following the ratification process the Articles called for.
And again, you haven’t refuted the central fact: Legitimacy was added on after-the-fact. They broke the law first.
You can call it necessary, you can cite there wasn’t much opposition, but it doesn’t change the fact that the law was broken.
Congress voted to approve it, and submitted it to the state legislatures. So tell me, who selected (or determined the selection method for) the delegates to the state conventions?
Which is still adding on legitimacy after-the-fact.
Delegates were chosen through special elections; most were not appointed directly.
Sidestep all you want, but the fact hasn’t changed. The law was broken, and it was smoothed over after-the-fact.
Oh and as to that whole “unity thing”; ever learned how Rhode Island was made to ratify?
Whatever the convention did had to be submitted to congress, and without congressional approval would have been ‘illegitimate’. Had they merely drafted revisions of the articles of confederation, those would have been illegitimate without congressional approval
Had nine state legislatures voted to reject the constitution rather than accept it for consideration, it would have been dead in the water.
Rhode Island? Heh, no force was threatened. Only trade sanctions. Funny you think they had the right to withhold ratification and the federal government was wrong to use economic pressure on them, but you’re a-okay with using murder, plunder and rape to compel states to remain…
They did not, nor could they offer approval. They sent it to the States for that.
Which again, was not the standard the Articles of Confederation allowed. You needed complete unity.
Yes, because that’s how the Articles of Confederation worked.
There was no mechanism for the Federal Government to coerce States into ratifying anything, that goes against the very idea of what a Confederation is.
Rhode Island also held a popular referendum on the Constitution. Forcing a social charter onto a dissenting public – something the Articles would certainly have not allowed.
Dirty tactics were applied to the other Colonies too, yet it was swept under the rug. Majority opinion trounced minority rights.