Commentary This is the fifth in a series of essays defending the U.S. Constitution against common accusations against it. This essay examines the claim that that the framers—the Constitution’s drafters—staged a coup d’état by proposing a new Constitution. As usually stated, the allegation is that: The Confederation Congress adopted a resolution calling a convention limited only to proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation. But the convention disregarded limits on its authority and instead drafted an entirely new document. Moreover, the Articles could be amended only by approval of Congress and unanimous consent of the states. But the convention unilaterally changed the rule to allow ratification by nine states. This charge is very old: It first arose during the ratification debates of 1787–1790. Although modern scholars have debunked it (pdf), the Constitution’s critics continue to peddle it. In doing so, they— overlook critical events leading up to the convention; fail …