<P> (T) he 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 . </P> <P> On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity: </P> <P> The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same . </P> <P> The apparent tension between these two provisions was addressed at the time, and remains a topic of scholarly discussion . In 1788, James Madison remarked (in Federalist No. 40) that the issue had become moot: "As this objection...has been in a manner waived by those who have criticised the powers of the convention, I dismiss it without further observation ." Nevertheless, it is an interesting historical and legal question whether opponents of the Constitution could have plausibly attacked the Constitution on that ground . At the time, there were state legislators who argued that the Constitution was not an alteration of the Articles of Confederation, but rather would be a complete replacement so the unanimity rule did not apply . Moreover, the Confederation had proven woefully inadequate and therefore was supposedly no longer binding . </P>

What was each state power in the congress of the confederation based on