More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons Federalism
The relationship between federal, state and local government
Pros and cons Federalism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Framers sided with the United States Constitution because they had a better federal government. They could do better at controlling all the states and they had representatives and we had a president. That still could be taken out of being president. The Articles of Confederation had many problems. The focus of the Federal Government and State Government was different in many ways and had power differently that will be explained. The Articles of Confederation had a lot of problems that made them fail. One reason is the federal government had no power at all to tax. They had no court systems in the judicial branch. Congress had to establish temporary courts to hear cases of piracy. The voting system was messed up. Nine out of the thirteen states had to vote yes to pass a law and each state only had one vote even if they had a really populated area. They didn’t have any power to enforce the laws only the states had the power to enforce which still wasn’t enough. The Articles of Confederation had strong state governments even though they weren't really together they were like separate countries instead of states. …show more content…
The Federalist thought the federal government should have more power because it and nothing to do to help against the states. The Anti Federalist wanted the states to have more power and didn't want the federal government have that much power. Because they could overpower everyone. The reason that the federalist wanted the federal government to have more power is because they could tax better they could have a court system that works for everyone not just each state for himself. When the states had all the power everyone was hurt because they couldn't raise enough money to do anything. When the federal government got more power they hurt more of the farmers than
There were 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 to 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 those laws? How could the government be designed to protect the unalienable individual rights? Their first attempt at solving this issue was the Articles of Confederation, which was a failure for the most part, but not completely. After the failure of the articles, the state delegates tried to revise the articles, but instead, constructed the Constitution. There were so many changes made and very little remained the same.
The. The Anti-Federalist claimed that the sovereignty of the states was to be maintained then the states must be granted the vital powers of government and the power of Congress is limited to the United States. However, they claimed that this was not. under the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution gave Congress unlimited power and did not explicitly detail any control.
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.
Anti –federalist believed that with out the bill of rights, the national government would became a to strong it would threating the americans peoples rights and libertys. Due to prior american revolution, ant-federalist did not forget what they fought for an believed that with a stronger national government, the president could become kind if he wanted. During this time people still feared a strong central government, due to british occupany of the states. Concidently the of people who wanted the bill of rights and were anti-federalist were famers and the working class, as to the fedarlist were extremely rich and powerful people Thomas Jeferson who was a active anti-federalist once wrote to james Madison A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences. (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers
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.
To answer the second portion of this question, if the Articles of Confederation were in force our country would not be better when it comes to laws. The Articles of Confederation would make our country extremely weak considering the many factors of what made it fail. There would be no source of power given to Congress or the federal government, which would eventually cause huge problems. This would then raise problems in levying taxes and regulating trade throughout the U.S. Without having a source of power under the Articles of Confederation, enforcing laws would be difficult and hard to handle. The major weaknesses that would bring this country down are as
The Articles of Confederation was the United States first attempt at creating a democratic government. Instead of giving power to the central government they divided it up among the states (Kelly). This fact left the Articles with many weaknesses that ultimately led it to fail. The lack of a strong central government led to economic disorganization, no central leadership and an ineffective legislative, all which led to its downfall (Brackemyre). Leaving power to the states left the nation in a state of economic disorganization. Without the national government having the power to levy taxes, it was left with the states (Murphy). The legislature only had the right to request taxes, and it was left up to the states how they wanted to raise them, but they oftentimes weren't (Brackemyre). There was also no uniform system of currency which made trade between states difficult. The fact that states instead of Congress regulated trade led to a lack...
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.
To say that the Articles of Confederation provided the United States of America with an effective government would be quite an over exaggeration. For most people in modern day, an effective government would be one that can govern mass numbers of people and still be politically correct in overruling decisions on matters while keeping the law in mind, yet keeping the benefit of common good front and center. But, the Articles of Confederation were not written in the present day, so these ideals of a competent government were not quite applicable. For most people, an effective government was one that could govern mass numbers of people, still giving the states and the people many rights, while still being able to keep all under control. This would have eliminated any possibility that a federal government could become too strong or resemble a monarchy.
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.
While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the
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.
Soon after the Revolutionary War in America, a new government was started when the Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress. The Articles set up a democratic government that gave the States the power to make their own laws and to enforce them. However, the Articles were ineffective and failed to provide a strong government. During this critical period in the history of the United States, pandemonium and anarchy were growing due to: controlled public, nothing in the Articles that gave Congress the power to enforce laws, no solid monetary system, and also the country lacked unity and strength
The Articles of Confederation was a failed document due to the federal government not having enough power. Not having enough power meant that there were no treaties, the government could not enforce laws and collect taxes, and there were no armies. This is known as the Shay’s Rebellion. To fix this situation the federal government raised to power by collecting taxes, enforcing laws. They limited power by having the 3 branches of government which are the judicial, the executive, and the legislative branch. Some ways that the constitution of the united states has created a strong national (federal) government is by the Supreme Law of the Land, and how long terms are in the federal office and how the people in