united-states constitutional-law us-constitution legal-history
Were the US Articles of Confederation formally repealed?
<p>The Constitutional Convention was originally intended to revise the Articles of Confederation.  At some point, the framers decided to start from scratch instead, and produced the Constitution, which fully came into effect when <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#1788_Ratification" rel="nofollow">ratified by 13 states in 1790</a>.</p>

<p>For the most part, the Constitution of 1787 covers the same topics as the Articles of Confederation, and obviously the Constitution takes precedence in case of conflict.  However, nowhere in the US Constitution does it mention the Articles of Confederation, nor does it explicitly state that it supersedes it entirely.</p>

<p>So, what, if anything, would prevent Canada from hypothetically demanding to be admitted as the 51st state, as stipulated in <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp#art11" rel="nofollow">Article Ⅺ</a>?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>See Article VI of the Constitution:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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 Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This seems to me that it pretty clearly establishes the Constitution as taking the place of any previous laws.  </p>

<p>In particular, Article XI of the Articles is in conflict with Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution ("New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union").  The Constitution says that Congress's action is required to create a new state, and doesn't mention any exceptions.  The Constitution's terms presumably take precedence.</p>

<p>If Canada wanted to become a state, it would have to be admitted by Congress under Article IV Section 3.</p>

<p>The Constitution <b>does</b> mention the Articles of Confederation, in Article VI, Clause 1. It says treaties, debts, and other engagements of the U.S. under the Confederation are equally valid under the new Constitution.</p>
<p>Does that constitute a formal repeal? I suspect not.</p>
<p>But the content taken as a whole makes it clear that the document was intended to supersede the earlier one.</p>
