Was the move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution legal according to the then in-force Articles?

Answer 1

== == Whether or not the switch from the Articles to the constitution was "illegal" under the Articles is largely irrelevant. For over 200 years, we have chosen to be bound by the current Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation. Our government is bound by the Constitution, and nobody seriously argues that the U.S. government is illegitimate, and that some other, non-existent, government has a rightful claim to power.

The fact is, without the support of the people, the Articles of Confederation aren't worth the paper they're printed on, for anything other than a historical curiosity. If every single person in the U.S., from the President, the courts, and Congress, all the way down to you and I, decided that we no longer wanted to live under the Constitution, because somebody has come up with a better idea, who would stop us? Would it technically be "legal" to scrap the constitution and start from scratch? That's hard to say, but at that point, it wouldn't really matter, would it?

The move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was, in fact, illegal according to the government of the time. The Annapolis convention was called in 1786, but only 12 delegates (5 states) showed up. Alexander Hamilton recommended meeting again the year after. Then, in May 1787, 55 delegates (from 12 states...not RI) met in Philadelphia. They met in total secrecy. Source: The American Pageant ed.12 Houghton Mifflin Co.