"How do you Define "Founding Fathers"?" Topic

If anyone wants to see the relationship between the Declaration and the Bill of Rights, read the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason. It is essentially both, written and adopted before July 1776.

Article VI of the US Constitution is quite clear:

'This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…'

And the Constitutional Convention was convened in order to 'repair' the Articles of Confederation which was proven to be ineffective. The Convention found that the Articles could not be 'repaired' and the new document was written which solved the main problem confronting the Convention-that of forming a strong central government.

In short, the articles were deemed to be 'ineffective.'

Nevertheless, the Declaration is part of our Fundamental Law.

The problem is, the Constitution does not make reference to it and that is quite conclusive.

And what is our 'Fundamental Law'?

The Constitution is the 'law of the land'…

Perhaps this will help:

From Merriam-Webster:

fundamental law
noun
: the organic or basic law of a political unit as distinguished from legislative acts
specifically : CONSTITUTION

So, it appears that the Constitution is the Fundamental Law of the United States.

The following might also be of use:

link

The DOI is law? It's a powerful document but it has no force of law.

"Organic Law" is like "Tofu Turkey".

US law says it is fundamental law. As to "force of law", well, we are independent.

The Constitution succinctly states that the Constitution is the law of the land.

The definition of fundamental law states that is is a constitution.

What specifically in the Declaration of Independence declares it to be fundamental law and what US law specifically states that the Declaration is 'US law'?

Or, what US law states that the DoI is 'fundamental law.' As the DoI isn't a constitution, how is it fundamental law.

The DoI is a legal document, but it isn't US Law.

In point of fact, what are the particulars of the DoI that would make it 'fundamental law'? Being a legal document, as well as a founding document, does not make it US law. Legal documents are not necessarily law.

US law says it is fundamental law. As to "force of law", well, we are independent.

It's one of the greatest documents ever and a work of art to boot. And yet, it's a declaration and not really a law.

Unless, and i hope I'm wrong here, the concern for it to be legal is a referral to one of SC's reason for secession.

link

Are the Articles of Confederation fundamental law? Of course they were superseded but laws passed by the Confederation Congress are still in force. e.g. the Land Ordinances.

The Articles of Confederation was a constitution. Therefore they were fundamental law by definition.

Okay (chuckle). The Declaration was issued by the same authority (the Congress) and had a direct and immediate constitutional effect: the colonies are now free and independent states. It was, yes of course, a NEGATIVE constitutional effect, saying what we are NOT. But that effect held -- we are still independent today. The Decalaration created no institutions at the national level, but it DID create thirteen sovereign states. And you have to have states before you can have a UNITED States.

Drops mic.

In other words, there was a PROCESS in developing our constitution, and each step in the process was necessary nd part of our fundamental law. The Articles did some lasting things -- a "perpetual union" iirc -- and the Land Ordinances passed under them set up the vitally important "add-a-state" plan.

The Articles were insufficient in governing the United States and were weak with no head of state and strong central government. In short, they were inefficient and weak.

Hence, the development and passing of the US Constitution which did have teeth and established a strong central government.

Whether or not there was a process is debatable. The purpose of the constitutional convention was to change and strengthen the Articles. That was found to be unworkable and they were discarded and the convention started over and came up with the US Constitution.

Ehh, had the 3% impost passed they'd have worked well enough.

Well it's a good thing the Constitution completely superseded the other, previous docs cause it'd be pretty darn complex to have to refer to all those arcane documents to try and run a united country.

But it DIDN'T. The institutions changed, yes, but the fundamental conditions (such as independence) and processes (the add-a-state plan) and assumptions (the Bill of Rights, first written by George Mason in the Virginia Declaration in 1776 and then added, again mainly by George Mason, in the first ten amendments) did not. There is immense continuity; the federal constitution of 1787 was far from a clean or complete break.

There is continuity, but the Constitution is quite different from the Articles, giving the new federal central government enumerated powers and established a strong central government.

The latter was not a fundamental condition of the Articles.

The central government under the Articles had no head of state. In point of fact, the Congress in the last years of the War of the Revolution deferred to Washington, making him the de facto head of state.

The Articles were sufficient to get the country through the last years of the war. They were not sufficient to unite the country and protect if after the war was over and the army was disbanded.

Interestingly, during the upheavals of the French Revolution and the wars the revolution started, the French army was the only stable national institution which is why the plotters of the 1799 coup needed a general to be part of it. Luckily for France, they chose Napoleon to join the conspiracy.

And luckily for the United States a conspiracy and a coup were not needed to establish a strong central government. And the US was at peace when the need to replace the Articles arose.

Well it's a good thing the Constitution completely superseded the other, previous docs cause it'd be pretty darn complex to have to refer to all those arcane documents to try and run a united country.

But it DIDN'T.

Au contraire..it did.

The institutions changed, yes, but the fundamental conditions (such as independence) and processes (the add-a-state plan) and assumptions (the Bill of Rights, first written by George Mason in the Virginia Declaration in 1776 and then added, again mainly by George Mason, in the first ten amendments) did not. There is immense continuity; the federal constitution of 1787 was far from a clean or complete break.

You are referring to AoC concepts lifted and used in the Constitution?

I am speaking about something else; once the Constitution was passed the AoC were voided as law.

…once the Constitution was passed the AoC were voided as law.

Sounds quite definitive to me. 😁

No. The Constitution replaced the confederation Congress as LAWMAKER (and enforcer and judiciary) but the laws passed under of AoC still applied and still apply today. Most prominantly the add-a-state plan developed in the Land Ordinances. And treaties passed under the AoC would still apply (though probably all are moot now from later developments). Just as an example, the Treaty of Paris (1783) established a permanent alliance between the US and France. That treaty was still in force in 1793 when Genet demanded Washington go to war in support of the French republic. Of course GW wisely declined, but he had to justify breaking a treaty (which he did on grounds that the treaty was with the king and the French asking him to comply with it were those who had overthrown the king). But the treaty did NOT lose its legal force merely because of the ratification of the Constitution.

The Constitution replaced the Articles and became the law of the land, is stated and previously posted, 'This Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the land…) something the Articles did not do, among other general and specific weaknesses.

And the Constitution in Article VI specifically stated that 'All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.'

And the Constitution in Article VI specifically stated that 'All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.'

It says this in the same place in the CSA Constitution as well. Thus, no one can claim they were mistakenly reading the "real" version.

???????