Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Conder101, post: 4979774, member: 66&quot;]I agree, so the Fugio cent is a US coin as well.&nbsp; One thing about the 1789 date for the starting of the current government.&nbsp; That was the date when the 9th state ratified the Constitution and&nbsp; the constitution had that provision included within it (go into effect once 3/4 of the states had ratified it)&nbsp; But that is a case of changing the rules retroactively, not really valid.&nbsp; The ratification of the Constitution was being carried out under the rules set forth in the Articles of Confederation, and THOSE rules required a UNANIMOUS agreement by all the states before it could be changed.&nbsp; Under those rules the Constitution could not go into effect until all thirteen states ratified it, and that didn&#039;t happen until 1791.</p><p><br /></p><p>Permitting the Constitution to change it own rules for ratification could be seen as a bad precedent.&nbsp; Under the Constitution a new amendment requires 2/3 vote in the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4 of the states.&nbsp; But what if an amendment was proposed that included in it language that only required a simple majority vote?&nbsp; Under the precedent set by the ratification of the Constitution itself, such an amendment could in theory change it&#039;s own requirements for ratification and amend the constitution with a simple majority vote.&nbsp; If you take the 1791 date when the last of the thirteen states ratified the constitution and the beginning of the current government, not 1789, that eliminates that little precedent problem because it satisfies the rules of the Articles and provides a proper transfer of power.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in