Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Negotiation processes
To Further the Nation, We Must Ratify At Once! In 1777, the Articles of Confederation were written and became our first plan for governing the United States. They were founded on the ideals of Federalism – limited government, upholding the authority of state governments and equality between states. At the time, this form of government was crucial to prevent tyranny, in addition to organizing and effectively fighting the Revolutionary War. It also allowed us to borrow money, operate a military, ban slavery in the west, and create new states. There are current proposals to replace the Confederation with updated system outlined in the “Constitution.” But, should we even consider making changes? After all, Patrick Henry said, "The Confederation, this despised government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium--it carried us through a long and dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses--and shall a government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility, and abandoned for want of energy?" If it got us through the revolutionary war, surely it can still suffice, right? Let’s face it – our current form of government plagued by the Confederation is growing weaker, and recent events such as Shay's Rebellion prove evident that there is growing unrest. As many of my fellow Federalists have proposed, it's crucial that we ratify the Constitution. Here are a few reasons why. The issue of representation is undoubtedly a heated debate – currently each state only has one vote in the legislative branch. Larger states want representation to be based on population, why smaller states want equal representa... ... middle of paper ... ...a point, where through partnership and negotiation, the Constitution meets the demands of both sides. Federalists achieve a strong central government, which will further the common good of the nation and help us become stronger. On the other side, we’ve applied concerns from Anti-Federalists regarding individual and state rights, along with the proper balancing of power. We’ve also placed the proper provisions in place, which protect against the abuse of power through through checks and balances. It may not be perfect, but as Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist No. 65, "If mankind were to resolve to agree in no institution of government, until every part of it had been adjusted to the most exact standard of perfection, society would soon become a general scene of anarchy, and the world a desert." So come now, and urge your state to ratify. Now is the perfect time!
In conclusion this is why tyranny and federalism, separation of power, checks and balances and big and small states all mean that they are important to know also the branches are a big part especially in the separation of
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.
As I stated earlier each state wanted to be represented according to different factors. The states with bigger populations wanted representation to be based solely off of population. The states with smaller populations wanted there to be a fixed number of representatives per state, regardless of size or population. The Connecticut Compromise resolved this issue by forming the two houses that we have today.
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 United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
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.
When discussing the new science of politics laid out in the Federalist papers, it is imperative to understand that proponents of the Constitution had various reasons for writing these papers, not the least of which was convincing critics that a strong central government that would not oppress but actually protect individual freedoms as well as encouraging the state of New York to agree to ratify the Constitution.
The most important idea James Madison shares in Federalist 10 was that the size of the United States and its variety of interests could be guaranteed stability and justice under the new constitution. When Madison wrote this, accepted opinion among sophisticated politicians was exactly the opposite. His “compound republic,” with its “double security” for the “rights of the people,” has survived for over 200 years (James Madison, Federalist
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.
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.
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
Federalism, by definition, is the division of government authority between at least two levels of government. In the United States, authority is divided between the state and national government. “Advocates of a strong federal system believe that the state and local governments do not have the sophistication to deal with the major problems facing the country” (Encarta.com).
Overall, the benefits of the federalism far exceed the anti-federalist movement’s causes. Federalism provides a much more organized and uniform government and promotes harmony between states and the central government by allowing them to work together. Sharing the burden between both federal and state authorities allows each governing body to handle their respective priorities more efficiently while at the same time sharing power to avoid having one ruling body that has so much power and opportunity to become tyrannical. I believe that if the founding fathers were alive they very day, they would pat each other in the back and acknowledge the progress that has been made.