|
cJL$ISPRUDENCE 2D CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 7
<br /> 'TONAL : nois, Wisconsin, and Ohio and part of Minnesota.' The federal courts
<br /> have generally held that the Ordinance was superseded by the adop-
<br /> tion of the Constitution of the United States' on the ground that the
<br /> Constitution places all the states of the Union on an equal basis which
<br /> would not be the case if the Ordinance continued to be in force after
<br /> the adoption of the organic law.' Even after the adoption of the Con-
<br /> stitution, however, some of the provisions of the Ordinance were
<br /> continued in force by acts of Congress during the period of the territo-
<br /> rial government of the Northwest Territory.'
<br /> In both the federal courts and those of the states created out of the
<br /> Northwest Territory, the doctrine that the Ordinance has been
<br /> superseded by the state constitution when a new state has been admit-
<br /> ted to the Union is adhered to, and no effect is given to that Ordinance
<br /> iration of except insofar as its principles may have been embodied in the state
<br /> tes of constitution.10
<br /> Following the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation
<br /> were drafted in 1777 and submitted by the Continental Congress to
<br /> the state legislatures for approval, but they were not approved by all
<br /> the states until 1781." The newly independent states did not favor a
<br /> laration of Inde- centralized executive authority, and the government ultimately cre-
<br /> therefore cannot ated by the Articles of Confederation amounted to little more than a
<br /> limits of rights = loose confederation of states that derived its authority from accep-
<br /> the Constitution tance of the principles of the confederation by the state legislatures
<br /> the courts have through ratification.t2 The articles created a government with a single
<br /> .g constitutional branch of government—a Congress with members appointed by the
<br /> state legislatures.f3 Congress was given the sole and exclusive power
<br /> >n of the United to make war and peace, to enter into treaties and other alliances, to
<br /> est Ordinance.' coin money, to establish a postal system, to send and receive ambas-
<br /> Territory of the
<br /> admark legisla- 0374P(6th Cir. 1994). Sands v. Manistee River Imp. Co., 123
<br /> t effect on the 'State of Mich. v. U.S.,40 F.3d 817, U.S.288,8 S.Ct. 113,31 L.Ed. 149(1887)
<br /> 1 law—was the 95 Ed. Law Rep. 846, 1994 FED App. (Michigan); Huse v. Glover, 119 U.S. 543,
<br /> covering more 0374P(6th Cir. 1994). 7 S. Ct. 313, 30 L. Ed. 487 (1886) (Illi-
<br /> y to which the 7Chapin v. Fye, 179 U.S. 127, 21 S. nois); Dixon v. People, 168 Ill. 179, 48
<br /> Ct. 71, 45 L. Ed. 119 (1900). N.E. 108 (1897); State ex rel. Donahey v.
<br /> n, Indiana, Illi- a Edmondson, 89 Ohio St. 93, 105 N.E. 269
<br /> Sands v. Manistee River Imp. Co., (1913).
<br /> 123 U.S. 288, 8 S. Ct. 113, 31 L. Ed. 149
<br /> K's Stove & Range (1887); Huse v. Glover, 119 U.S. 543, 7 S. "Clinton, A Brief History of the
<br /> 32 L.R.A.N.S. 748 Ct. 313, 30 L. Ed. 487 (1886); Cardwell v. Adoption of the United States Constitu-
<br /> D.C. 1909); People American River Bridge Co., 113 U.S. 205, tion, 75 Iowa L. Rev. 891 (May 1990).
<br /> -den of City Prison 5 S. Ct. 423, 28 L. Ed. 959 (1885). 'ZClinton, A Brief History of the
<br /> 157 N.Y. 116, 51 9Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S. 82, 10 Adoption of the United States Constitu-
<br /> U.S.,40 F.3d 817 How. 82, 13 L. Ed. 337, 1850 WL 6936 tion, 75 Iowa L. Rev. 891 (May 1990).
<br /> i, 1994 FED A ' (1850). 13 Clinton, A Brief History of the
<br /> pp 10Hawkins v. Bleakly, 243 U.S. 210, Adoption of the United States Constitu-
<br /> U.S., 40 F.3d 817, 37 S. Ct.255, 61 L. Ed. 678(1917)(Iowa); tion, 75 Iowa L. Rev. 891 (May 1990).
<br /> i, 1994 FED App.
<br /> 331
<br />
|