Editing Articles of Confederation (section)

===Legitimacy of closing down===
Two prominent political leaders in the Confederation, [[John Jay]] of New York and [[Thomas Burke (governor)|Thomas Burke]] of North Carolina believed that "the authority of the congress rested on the prior acts of the several states, to which the states gave their voluntary consent, and until those obligations were fulfilled, neither nullification of the authority of congress, exercising its due powers, nor secession from the compact itself was consistent with the terms of their original pledges."{{sfn|Hendrickson|2003|page=153–154}}

According to Article XIII of the Confederation, any alteration had to be approved unanimously:

<blockquote>[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.</blockquote>

On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity:

<blockquote>The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.</blockquote>

The apparent tension between these two provisions was addressed at the time, and remains a topic of scholarly discussion. In 1788, James Madison remarked (in ''[[Federalist No. 40]]'') that the issue had become moot: "As this objection&nbsp;... has been in a manner waived by those who have criticised the powers of the convention, I dismiss it without further observation." Nevertheless, it is a historical and legal question whether opponents of the Constitution could have plausibly attacked the Constitution on that ground. At the time, there were state legislators who argued that the Constitution was not an alteration of the Articles of Confederation, but rather would be a complete replacement so the unanimity rule did not apply.{{Sfnp|Maier|2010|page=62}} Moreover, the Confederation had proven woefully inadequate and therefore was supposedly no longer binding.{{Sfnp|Maier|2010|page=62}}

Modern scholars such as Francisco Forrest Martin agree that the Articles of Confederation had lost its binding force because many states had violated it, and thus "other states-parties did not have to comply with the Articles' unanimous consent rule".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Martin |first=Francisco |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xNEjqp2A6ZgC&pg=PA5 |title=The Constitution as Treaty: The International Legal Constructionalist Approach to the U.S. Constitution |date=2007 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |page=5|isbn=9781139467186 }}</ref> In contrast, law professor [[Akhil Amar]] suggests that there may not have really been any conflict between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution on this point; Article VI of the Confederation specifically allowed side deals among states, and the Constitution could be viewed as a side deal until all states ratified it.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Amar |first=Akhil |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xfkJRm6VCQ0C&pg=PA517 |title=America's Constitution: A Biography |date=2012 |publisher=[[Random House]] |page=517 |isbn=9781588364876 |author-link=Akhil Amar}}</ref>