Balance must always be maintained in government between anarchy and tyranny. The Articles of Confederation was a faulty design for a government that limited the power of a government of that scale too much. The Constitution should be ratified. It would create the centralized government necessary to run a republic of that scale. It provides the necessary adjustments to the national government that would ensure stability for the newfound nation. It creates a balance between tyranny of too much concentrated power and tyranny of majority. It maintains the original intent of the Articles of Confederation by safeguarding against concentrated power in the hands of very few people. However, It also addresses another flaw that was resolved in the Articles of Confederation which is the tyranny of majority. The Constitution calls for bicameral system with one representing the population differences of the states, and the other representing all the states as equal with 2 representatives per state. Since its system is more republican than it is democratic, tyranny of the majority is prevented because it is …show more content…
near impossible to convert so many representatives into one specific set of beliefs. If it were somehow achieved and didn’t benefit the nation, they could be elected out of office, which means that the faction would not even be stable. It’s safeguard against majority is still strong nonetheless. The Constitution gives more power to the national government than it does to the states.
The Articles of Confederation gave too much to the states, and put too much faith in them to heed the national government’s suggestions. The States remained unresponsive to the words of the national government many times.The Constitution gives more power to the national government by endowing it with more rights and abilities, and removing some powers from the state governments. By doing this, the Constitution repositions the balance of power of the states and the national government by giving the national government more power than the state government. This allows the national government to make sure that certain aspects of American life are static across the entire nation, and are not subject to change in one particular region for those certain political concerns such as
currency. The Constitution splits the power of the national government in a much more balanced way. The Articles of Confederation’s branches of government were in many instances useless. They limited the ability to achieve any goals, and did not balance each other at all. The Constitution’s branches balance each other very well. They apply Montesquieu’s separation of power idea much more efficiently than they did with the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution’s branches allow more to be done, but also allow reasonable roadblocks for when a resolution might be detrimental to the United States through such actions as a presidential veto. It also gave the executive much more power, which corrects a balance issue the Articles of Confederation had. The Articles of Confederation was enough to stabilize the newfound Unites States during the Revolutionary War, but are not enough to allow it to progress after the war. It was flawed with too much limitation of power, too much focus on the majority, and an uneven balance of power throughout the entire system. The Constitution should be ratified because it addresses all major issues with the Articles of Confederation, while maintaining its core values of liberty and anti-tyranny. It creates a balance of power in the United States between states and the national government as well as between its own branches of government. It also allows the United States to accomplish more of its goals in a more efficient manner than in the Articles of Confederation.
In other words, the states will have all the powers that are not appointed to the national government, by the Articles of Confederation. According to Article 9, “The national congress will have the power to declare war, negotiate foreign treaties, settle disputes between states, regulate currency, direct the operations of land and naval forces, borrow money from the states.” (Williamsburg, 2009) An elaboration of this is that, the national government is limited to the powers, that are stated above, and has no control of anything else. Since the national government had little to no control over any of the states, laws that were past inside of these states became unjust and faced little repercussions from the national government, because of the limitations that were put into place by the articles of confederation.
With these different balances to control the powers throughout the new government, the problem of tyranny wasn’t as such of a problem as it was when the Articles of Confederation were in place. The states were now represented justly, the national and state levels of government fairly empowered, and the three branches within the national government were balanced. Even the three branches within balanced each other out, so one wouldn’t become too under or over powered. The new government created by the Constitution was a good answer to protect against
The Articles of Confederation, the perfect republican government, was not a perfect government. It was faulty and ineffective in providing a central government with tax revenue to pay off debts, which caused the discontent of mobs that the central government would fail to control. The Articles created a weak government that would be easily pushed around by its people and by foreign countries. The reliance on civic virtue was successful in organized land policies that spread republicanism ideals; however, it failed to aid the Congress of the Confederation in tax revenue and controlling mobocracy. The Articles of Confederation was ineffective and faulty with is roots planted solely in republicanism.
The Articles of Confederation was the nation’s first Constitution. The articles created a loose Confederation of independent states that gave limited powers to the central government. Each state would have one vote in the House of Congress, no matter the size of the population. Members of the one-house Congress, such as Pennsylvania, agreed that the new government should be a unicameral legislature, without an executive branch or a separate judiciary. Under the article, there wasn’t a strong independent executive.
Eric Foner claims the definition of Federalism refers to the relationship between the national government and the states. Unlike the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation came with many weaknesses. Some provided by our powerpoint include that the Federal government had no power to make the states obey the Articles and laws that were passed by the legislature. The states also had the power to tax, and the opportunity to print their own money. Our powerpoint focuses on the $10 million Congress owed to other countries, as well as the $40 million it owed to the American veterans. The Constitution differed. Foner states that not only did the Constitution enhance national authority, but it also permitted Congress to levy taxes, conduct commerce, confirm war, deal with the foreign nations and Indians, and rent and help the “general welfare”. According to the powerpoint, Federalists focused on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
The year of 1776 was a time of revolution, independence, and patriotism. American colonists had severed their umbilical cord to the Mother Country and declared themselves “Free and Independent States”.1 The chains of monarchy had been thrown off and a new government was formed. Shying away from a totalitarian government, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document called the Articles of Confederation which established a loose union of the states. It was an attempt at self-government that ended in failure. The Articles of Confederation had many defects which included a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate trade, required equal representation and a unanimous vote to amend the Articles, and had only a legislative branch. As a result the United States lacked respect from foreign countries. These flaws were so severe that a new government had to be drafted and as a result the Constitution was born. This document remedied the weak points of the federal government and created one that was strong and fair, yet still governed by the people.
The Articles of Confederation was a plan of government that was based on the principles that were fought for in the American Revolutionary War. Even though The Articles of Confederation were based upon principles we fought for, it contained major flaws. The government had no power of national taxation and had no power to control trade. The biggest weakness of The Articles of Confederation was that it had no direct origin in the people, the states were in control. Each and every state had the power to collect its own taxes, issue currency, and provide for its own military. The Articles of Confederation was a transition between the Revolutionary War and the Constitution. Without The Articles of Confederation it would have been impossible to create the United States Constitution, mistakes were made with the first, and fixed later with the Constitution.
The Articles of Confederation was America’s first constitution. The Articles of Confederation failed to create a strong central government, however. With the demise of the states in sight, the need for a stronger and more structured central government became apparent. An invitation was sent to all thirteen states in February 1787 by the Confederation Congress to resolve the matter. The events that took place over the next several months would create the United States Constitution. Going down in history as a revolutionary form of government, the U.S. Constitution would give life to a country that is still running strong over 200 years later.
One of the key differences between the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation is in the way that they set up the Legislature. In the Articles, it is established as a unicameral legislature which it refers to as a Congress. The Constitution on the other hand establishes a bicameral legislature with an upper house, the Senate, and a lower house, the House of Representatives. The reason for this change was because different states wanted the number of representatives to be selected in different ways. Under the Articles of Confederation all States were represented equally and the bigger states felt that they should be getting more say in the decisions that the Country would be making. Needless to say the smaller states did not readily agree to this.
The Articles of Confederation were developed after the Revolutionary War, and were a good idea to help set standards for America. However, they had some major problems that needed to be solved in order for America to become a strong nation. After these problems were addressed the Constitution was developed.
In comparing the Articles of Confederation with the U.S constitution that was produced by the federal convention in 1787, it is important to note that the U.S operated under both documents. During March 1, 1781, the Articles of Confederation went into effect when it was ratified by Maryland. However, the U.S constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as soon as it was ratified on June 21, 1788 by New Hampshire. The main difference between the Articles of Confederations and the U.S Constitution is that the constitution didn’t force the laws, but established the why of the constitution. In establishing the why, it warranted the farmers to work on the government being better than the Articles of Confederations. They wanted the government
The Articles of Confederation were incapable of providing the United States with an effective form of government. The Articles of Confederation presided weakly over the government as it allowed little or no power to tax, control trade, and branches of government were missing. In addition to this, the thirteen states acted as separate nations and the national government had little control over them.
The Articles of Confederation set up a government that consisted of a one house body of delegates, with each state having a single vote, acting collectively, could make decisions on certain issues that affected all states. There was no president or judiciary so any decision required nine of the thirteen states’ votes. At this point in time the United States of America ... ... middle of paper ... ... o consider the charms of liberty as imaginary and delusive.”
The Articles of Confederation was the first government of the United States. The Articles had created a very weak national government. At the time the Articles were approved, they had served the will of the people. Americans had just fought a war to get freedom from a great national authority--King George III (Patterson 34). But after this government was put to use, it was evident that it was not going to keep peace between the states. The conflicts got so frequent and malicious that George Washington wondered if the “United” States should be called a Union (Patterson 35). Shays’ Rebellion finally made it evident to the public that the government needed a change.
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.