Is the Constitution Constitutional?

[Bono]

Ie, do you believe that :
a) the Constitutional Convention did not exceed its mandate to ammend the Articles of the Confederation;
and
b) That it was properly ratified?

[Brandon H]

Ie, do you believe that :
a) the Constitutional Convention did not exceed its mandate to ammend the Articles of the Confederation;
and
b) That it was properly ratified?

It was passed illegally under the previously existing law, but was not unconstitutional. It was un-Articles of Confederation-al. But we are stuck with it now.

[A18]

(a) Yes. If you change the name, and leave everything else the same, that's a revision. Indeed, the Constitution is just a reworking of the principles embedded in the Articles of Confederation.
(b) Every state approved the change in process, so yes.

[Emsworth]

(a) I do not believe that the Constitutional Convention exceeded its authority.
(b) The Constitution was legitimately ratified by nine states, so yes.

The question of whether the Constitutional Convention exceeded its mandate, etc., is irrelevant legally. After all, an argument could be made that the Articles themselves were illegal and treasonous against King George III. When the whole fundamental law of a state is completely uprooted or replaced, then the old fundamental law cannot be used to discredit the new one.

[J. J.]

(a) I do not believe that the Constitutional Convention exceeded its authority.

Nor I.  The mandate was that they amend the Articles.  They did, in their totality.