http://icenine.tsir.com/~hymie/gov/illegal.html
Why the Constitution is not legally valid


Warning -- this information is for entertainment purposes only. The
author is not a lawyer and does not guarantee that the legal system of
the United States of America recognizes this argument as valid. Any use
of this information for purposes other than entertainment is at the
user's sole risk, and said user agrees to absolve Hymie! of any and all
obligation thereto.

Not many people are aware that the Constitution is not a binding
document under law. 

The Articles of Confederation, the law of The United States of America
since its ratification by Maryland 1 March 1781, includes the following
sentence as part of Article XIII: 

And the 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. 

On 4 March 1789, the date which was chosen for implementing the
Constitution, the following states had not ratified the Constitution as
required under the Articles of Confederation: 

North Carolina (ratified 21 November 1789)  Rhode Island (ratified 29
May 1790) 

As yet, I have not found evidence that the Constitution was presented
to the Congress of the United States as required before it was sent to
the states for confirmation. 

Article VII of the Constitution states that "The Ratification of the
Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment
of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
However, for any article of the Constitution to have the force of law,
the Constitution must first be ratified -- under the terms and
conditions of the law in effect, under the Articles of Confederation.
Further, the statement "between the States so ratifying" violates
Article VI of the Articles of Confederation, which states: 

No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or
alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United
States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for
which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue. 

unless we stipulate that the United States in Congress assembled would
consent to such treason as forming a new government in violation of
Article XIII. 

Because the Constitution was already improperly in effect, the
ratifications of North Carolina and Rhode Island are invalid, as these
ratifications came under duress. The Articles of Confederation, which
to date have never been amended according to the requirements, remains
in full legal force over the 13 states that comprise The United States
of America. (I am still pondering whether the Constitution holds
validity in the area commonly referred to as the other 37 states.) 

On the other hand, if we stipulate that the ratification of the
Constituion under its own terms is legal, then I will propose a Set of
Rules for the United States naming me supreme ruler upon the
ratification of the Set of Rules: 

This Set of Rules shall take effect upon ratification by Hymie!