More handpicked essays just for you.
Separation of powers in american government
Articles of confederation and confederation government give a
Separation of powers easy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Separation of powers in american government
If a separation of powers was ever needed in our country, it was at a time when the peoples’ greatest fear was another all-powerful Parliament or tyrannical king. The Separation of Powers were needed most when the country was new and the Articles of Confederation were failing. Just after the Revolutionary War, but before Madison had taken presidency, the people feared another monarchy. To them, it was highly possible that if Washington — their very first president, and the commander who had lead them through their rebellion — was so inclined, it would not be so far-fetched that he would be able abuse his power and keep a tight hold on the country. The citizens feared an almighty Congress, and wondered how fair trials could really be under Madison’s
Exceptions to these rules are often required because of a lack of knowledge of the skills and expertise need to serve in government positions. For example the branches should strive to be independent from the other two branches. With each branch seeking to follow their own agenda rather than being controlled by others as they serve their sentences. Madison then proceeds to address the significant need of constitutional safeguards to prevent the gradual concentration of power. For example “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of man must be connected with the constitutional rights.” This provides us protection from those in the government and those who abuse their power because since we aren’t angels we will abuse power if given the chance and opportunity to. One of the greatest problems the government will face is controlling those they govern and themselves. Thus dependence on the peoples will is the government’s main source of power with other precautions. These precautions include the division of power within each branch to prevent any one branch from becoming unstoppable. However it isn’t possible to ensure that all branches receive equal power of defense. In republican governments, the legislative branch
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
Articles of Confederation vs. Constitution There are many differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. At the end of the American Revolution, the free states needed some sort of control that would generate a unified country. Issues arose such as: How should power be divided between local and national governments? How should laws be made, and by whom? Who should be authorized to govern these laws?
The thirteen American colonies were under the British control until they declared their independence from British in 1776. A year after the declaration of independence, the continental congress established the Article Of Confederation, which was the first constitution in the United States. According to manythings.org, “During that war, the colonies were united by an agreement called the Articles of Confederation”. It was later ratified in 1781, but it had many negatives because it was very weak. According to manythings.org, the Articles Of Confederation did not: organize a central government, create courts or decide laws, nor provide an executive to carry out the laws, and all it did was just create a Congress. This congress was very useless
James Madison once said,” All men having power ought to be distrusted.” Through these words, Madison made the statement that not all government officials use their authority for good; some abuse that power and use it to gain more for themselves rather than vesting it within the people. This issue may lead to tyranny. Tyranny is when all powers belong to only one person or group. In May of 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia to draft a better constitution. One of the topics that concerned many was how the constitution would guard against tyranny. Madison and the other delegates wanted a Constitution that would be strong enough to unite the states and the people together without letting there be one person or group gain too much power. They achieved this in several ways. Today, the U.S. Constitution guards against tyranny by including a separation of powers, federalism, and the fair representation of states.
Madison speaks of the problems of the present attempts at a new government saying “our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority”.
The Articles of Confederation were approved by Congress on November 15, 1777 and ratified by the states on March 1, 1781. It was a modest attempt by a new country to unite itself and form a national government. The Articles set up a Confederation that gave most of the power to the states. Many problems arose and so a new Constitution was written in 1787 in Independence Hall. The new Constitution called for a much more unified government with a lot more power. Let us now examine the changes that were undertaken.
The move from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution caused several people to be unhappy. For 6 years the Articles weakened the United States in more ways than one. In the summer of 1787 a new form of government was created, a radical move from the Articles of Confederation.
During his entire life, James Madison, who is one of the founding fathers, contributed many dedications to the States, especially when creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As the fourth president of the U.S, he consciously chose to create a new model of presidential power that he thought would fit better with the system of the separation of powers after seeing “the danger overwrought executive power poses to republican constitutionalism” (Kleinerman). Despite of having such good intention, some of his actions led the country through some significant suffers.
After the Revolutionary War, the newly formed United States still had a major task ahead of them. They had to form a new government that would satisfy the demands of the people and ensure the success of their nation. The Articles of Confederation was the first system of government that was proposed and put into effect. This attempt at creating a system that protected the people form a strong central government ultimately failed but was an important step in the development of the current government system. The weaknesses presented by the Articles of Confederation helped lead to reforms that made the Constitution successful. Both the Articles and the Constitution demonstrate the struggles that the colonists went through with the British and their desire to establish a new tyranny free government.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
Yes, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was essential to preserve the Union, as the Articles of Confederation did a meager job establishing a stable America. Only a handful of people from the entire nation were pleased with the issues addressed in the Articles of Confederation. This document didn’t unite the nation, but created more differences among the people. The Articles of Confederation failed to properly allocate power between Congress and the states, giving the states supreme control, rather than Congress. This unbalance in society left each individual state on their own, besides the alliances they could form within each other (creating even more rifts within the country). The Congress didn’t hold the power to tax or create a national military, navy, and army, which didn’t allow America to strengthen as a nation. By vesting these powers in the state, the Articles of Confederation technically created thirteen small countries. After the Revolution, the United States became even more susceptible to foreign invaders and if a minute state militia was responsible for warding off these trespassers, the state would be easily attacked. This is just once consequence that could have occurred, if the Constitution of 1787 wasn’t accepted.
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
The Separation of Powers was important to our Founders because the mistreatment of the power that the colonists gave to their leader was evident. The colonists preferred to avoid a similar occurrence in their new country, where they felt that their leaders were violating their rights. In one of James Madison’s Federalist Papers, it states that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, judiciary, in the hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny…(L)iberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and