The Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation OFFSITE blogpost topic- Linked through "Blogger's blog features.
The Articles Of Confederation, noted and recognized today by many youths as mentioned in the above blog post and here on this blogs past posts (Jump to a more "Enlightening Till") as a wonder to a hope; a hope for future recognition of the importances by todays youths, are not to be confused by the "preamble" of the United States Constitution . Although having a Monarchy was the favor of some authors.
I have seen other works supporting this reasoning (which I cannot retrace my past searches and saved bookmarks of topics that were for differnt reasonings than this post today to sort) websites with their disertations, pdf documents, and others writings in the past, and I believe it feesable to a theme suggesting that the U.S. Constitution exists NOT ONLY because of the ""determined"" need of a constitution BUT THAT ALSO THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION allowed *"a future constitution"; that this was allowable under the "articles of confederation" so much so that the Articles were almost designed in an effort to suspend the need of "A CONSTITUTION " ... in the true'est freedom or democracy portrail known- the world - "enlightenment" ENLIGHTENING imagined - (scroll down to Enlightning Defined)
ENLIGHTENING - MEANING IN GENERAL TODAY- that THE preamble today is a fundamentle statement, but one which often is an item of represent to the order of a coveted or, and to better describe the word again, a ""determined"" foundational statement guiding the insight towards the stage of The Constitution's Amendements and "ongoing amendment process"".
The PREAMBLE then is abused, but the constitution is not flawed unless abandoned, and the confederation all that more important; even under the Virginia Plan.
before i get into the preamble, let me explain 4 things

1. * THIS PORTION NEEDS FURTHER STUDY- for/of which "a future constitution" was allowable under the "articles of confederation";
   


2. SEE BELOW Or CLICK ON this Link for more on the reasoning (looking back at how we look at it from before, in the contructions: http://www.archive.org/stream/treatiseonconsti00coolrich/treatiseonconsti00coolrich_djvu.txt


3. ALSO A LITTLE OF THIS DOES STEM FROM THE THOUGHTS WITHIN OUR "AGE OF THESE DAY", TODAY (FROM A PAST POST -POINTS in Chapter 2 and part 3 and CHAPTER 3 http://1epluribusunum.blogspot.com/2009/08/n-one-else.html((three..) OTHERWISE YOU MAY JUST AS WELL Confuse the Constitutional wording differences and liknesses to that of others:
   Not to be confused with the French version - The Constitution of 1791
   3 September, 1791[Preamble] http://sourcebook.fsc.edu/history/constitutionof1791.html
   


4. ENLIGHTENING DEFINED ; YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE WONDERED "WHY HAVE i NOT YET "ENLIGHTENED" my reasonings about this Articles/ Constitution transition; I note this start with "of their day" and reflect that we today FEEL THE ANTITHESIS from those who have felt, and still feel that they did not percieve of our age of today: so for ENLIGHTENING i found this definitional from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/kant-whatis.html Modern History Sourcebook: Immanuel Kant: Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage s man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!"- that is the motto of enlightenment.
   Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged them from external direction (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless remains under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy not to be of age. If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay - others will easily undertake the irksome work for me.
   That the step to competence is held to be very dangerous by the far greater portion of mankind (and by the entire fair sex) - quite apart from its being arduous is seen to by those guardians who have so kindly assumed superintendence over them. After the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they are tethered, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens if they try to go alone. Actually, however, this danger is not so great, for by falling a few times they would finally learn to walk alone. But an example of this failure makes them timid and ordinarily frightens them away from all further trials.
   For any single individua1 to work himself out of the life under tutelage which has become almost his nature is very difficult. He has come to be fond of his state, and he is for the present really incapable of making use of his reason, for no one has ever let him try it out. Statutes and formulas, those mechanical tools of the rational employment or rather misemployment of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting tutelage. Whoever throws them off makes only an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch because he is not accustomed to that kind of free motion. Therefore, there are few who have succeeded by their own exercise of mind both in freeing themselves from incompetence and in achieving a steady pace.
   But that the public should enlighten itself is more possible; indeed, if only freedom is granted enlightenment is almost sure to follow. For there will always be some independent thinkers, even among the established guardians of the great masses, who, after throwing off the yoke of tutelage from their own shoulders, will disseminate the spirit of the rational appreciation of both their own worth and every man's vocation for thinking for himself. But be it noted that the public, which has first been brought under this yoke by their guardians, forces the guardians themselves to renain bound when it is incited to do so by some of the guardians who are themselves capable of some enlightenment - so harmful is it to implant prejudices, for they later take vengeance on their cultivators or on their descendants. Thus the public can only slowly attain enlightenment. Perhaps a fall of personal despotism or of avaricious or tyrannical oppression may be accomplished by revolution, but never a true reform in ways of thinking. Farther, new prejudices will serve as well as old ones to harness the great unthinking masses. ...thats ENLIGHTENED: (and more: but know first, there was a lot more written between my jump here and more over/decades and centurys of centurys of ages past that went into our endeavor to this enlightenment for our "fundamental founding reasonings to articles of Confederation and Constitutional Laws" than just the age of that day;..now more of Kant's ENLIGHTENMENT) ...An age cannot bind itself and ordain to put the succeeding one into such a condition that it cannot extend its (at best very occasional) knowledge , purify itself of errors, and progress in general enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature, the proper destination of which lies precisely in this progress and the descendants would be fully justified in rejecting those decrees as having been made in an unwarranted and malicious manner.
   The touchstone of everything that can be concluded as a law for a people lies in the question whether the people could have imposed such a law on itself. Now such religious compact might be possible for a short and definitely limited time, as it were, in expectation of a better. One might let every citizen, and especially the clergyman, in the role of scholar, make his comments freely and publicly, i.e. through writing, on the erroneous aspects of the present institution. The newly introduced order might last until insight into the nature of these things had become so general and widely approved that through uniting their voices (even if not unanimously) they could bring a proposal to the throne to take those congregations under protection which had united into a changed religious organization according to their better ideas, without, however hindering others who wish to remain in the order. But to unite in a permanent religious institution which is not to be subject to doubt before the public even in the lifetime of one man, and thereby to make a period of time fruitless in the progress of mankind toward improvement, thus working to the disadvantage of posterity - that is absolutely forbidden. For himself (and only for a short time) a man may postpone enlightenment in what he ought to know, but to renounce it for posterity is to injure and trample on the rights of mankind. And what a people may not decree for itself can even less be decreed for them by a monarch, for his lawgiving authority rests on his uniting the general public will in his own. If he only sees to it that all true or alleged improvement stands together with civil order, he can leave it to his subjects to do what they find necessary for their spiritual welfare. This is not his concern, though it is incumbent on him to prevent one of them from violently hindering another in determining and promoting this welfare to the best of his ability. To meddle in these matters lowers his own majesty, since by the writings in which his own subjects seek to present their views he may evaluate his own governance. He can do this when, with deepest understanding, he lays upon himself the reproach, Caesar non est supra grammaticos. Far more does he injure his own majesty when he degrades his supreme power by supporting the ecclesiastical despotism of some tyrants in his state over his other subjects.
   If we are asked , "Do we now live in an enlightened age?" the answer is, "No ," but we do live in an age of enlightenment. As things now stand, much is lacking which prevents men from being, or easily becoming, capable of correctly using their own reason in religious matters with assurance and free from outside direction. But on the other hand, we have clear indications that the field has now been opened wherein men may freely dea1 with these things and that the obstacles to general enlightenment or the release from self-imposed tutelage are gradually being reduced. In this respect, this is the age of enlightenment, or the century of Frederick.

FROM #2 ABOVE

Link for more on the reasoning (looking back at how we look at it from before, in the contructions (EXCERT): http://www.archive.org/stream/treatiseonconsti00coolrich/treatiseonconsti00coolrich_djvu.txt

1 The Declaration of Independence made them sovereign and independent States, by altogether abolishing the foreign jurisdiction, and substituting a national government of their own creation. But while national powers were assumed by and conceded to the Congress of 1775-76, that body was nevertheless strictly rev- olutionary in its character, and, like all revolutionary bodies, its 1 "All the country now possessed by the United States was [prior to the Revo- lution] a part of the dominions appertain- ing to the Crown of Great Britain. Every acre of land in this country was then held, mediately or immediately, by grants from that Crown. All the people of this country were then subjects of the King of Great Britain, and owed allegiance to him ; and all the civil authority then ex- isting or exercised here flowed from the head of the British empire. They were in a strict sense fellow-subjects, and in a variety of respects one people. When the Revolution commenced, the patriots did not assert that only the same affinity and social connection subsisted between the people of the colonies, which subsisted between the people of Gaul, Britain, and Spain, while Roman provinces, namely, only that affinity and social connection which result from the mere circumstance of being governed by one prince ; differ- ent ideas prevailed, and gave occasion to the Congress of 1774 and 1775. " The Revolution, or rather the Dec- laration of Independence, found the people already united for general pur- poses, and at the same time providing for their more domestic concerns by State conventions and other temporary arrangements. From the Crown of Great Britain the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it ; and it was not then an uncommon opinion that the unappropriated lands which be- longed to the Crown passed, not to the people of the colony or State within whose limits they were situated, but to the whole people. On whatever princi- ples this opinion rested, it did not give way to the other, and thirteen sov- ereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution, combined with local convenience and considerations ; the people, nevertheless, continued to consider themselves, in a national point of view, as one people; and they continued without interruption to manage their national concerns accord- ingly. Afterwards, in the hurry of the war, and in the warmth of mutual confi- dence, they made a confederation of the States the basis of a general government. Experience disappointed the expectations they had formed from it ; and then the people, in their collective capacity estab- lished the present Constitution." Per Jay, Ch. J., in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 470. See this point forcibly put and elaborated by Mr. A. J. Dallas, in his Life and Writings by G. M. Dallas, 200-207. Also in Texas . White, 7 Wall. 724. Professor Von Hoist, in his Constitutional History of the United States, c. 1, presents the same view clearly and fully. Compare Hurd, Theory of National Existence, 125. CH. II.] THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 9 authority was undefined, and could be limited only, first, by in- structions to individual delegates by the States choosing them ; second, by the will of the Congress ; and third, by the power to enforce that will. 1 As in the latter particular it was essentially feeble, the necessity for a clear specification of powers which should be exercised by the national government became speedily apparent, and led to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. But those articles did not concede the full measure of power es- sential to the efficiency of a national government at home, the en- forcement of respect abroad, or the preservation of the public faith or public credit ; and the difficulties experienced induced the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention held in 1787, by which a constitution was formed which was put into operation in 1789. As much larger powers were vested by this instrument in the general government than had ever been exer- cised in this country by either the Crown, the Parliament, or the Revolutionary Congress, and larger than those conceded to the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, the assent of the people of the several States was essential to its acceptance, and a provision was inserted in the Constitution that the ratifica- tion of the conventions of nine States should be sufficient for the establishment of the Constitution between the States so ratifying the same. In fact, the Constitution was ratified by conventions of delegates chosen by the people in eleven of the States, before the new government was organized under it ; and the remaining two, North Carolina and Rhode Island, by their refusal to accept, and by the action of the others in proceeding separately, were excluded altogether from that national jurisdiction which before had embraced them. This exclusion was not warranted by any- thing contained in the Articles of Confederation, which purported to be articles of " perpetual union ; " and the action of the eleven States in making radical revision of the Constitution, and exclud- ing their associates for refusal to assent, was really revolutionary in character, 2 and only to be defended on 4 the same ground of necessity on which all revolutionary action is justified, and which in this case was the absolute need, fully demonstrated by experi- ence, of a more efficient general government.
3
1 See remarks of...