Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Difference between the articles of confederation and the constitution
Difference between the articles of confederation and the constitution
Difference between the articles of confederation and the constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
For our founding fathers creating a new government was a very lengthy and difficult task in which all thirteen colonies had to come together and make compromises. One of the critical moments in which the founding fathers were urgently forced to have a meeting was because of what we historically know as Shay’s Rebellion, an unruly mob led by a revolutionary soldier Daniel Shay (Ginsberg et al. 37). According to the text book We the People, Shay’s Rebellion showed the flaws in the Articles of Confederation, a weak government unable to act promptly in critical emergencies (Ginsberg et al. 38). The founding fathers had to go from the Articles of Confederation to creating a completely new government, the U.S Constitution. As you can image this …show more content…
was an enormous responsibility. The founding fathers designed a new government, with a bicameral legislature, separation of powers, established a system of checks and balances and included a federal democratic structure.
Congress under the Articles of Confederation was the central government without an executive branch unable to tax or monitor the economy and lacked union among states with only one vote per state. (Ginsberg et al. 35). Therefore, it was practically impossible for all states to agree on any changes to flourish as a nation. This divided government urged our leaders to create a strong government, but before they were able to do so they were proposed by two national government plans that created disagreement among states: the Virginia Plan and New Jersey Plan (Ginsberg et al. 39). The Virginia Plan “…provided for a system of representation in the national legislature based upon the population of each state or the proportion of each state’s revenue contribution to the national government or both” (Ginsberg et al. 39). The Virginia Plan favored larger state and many smaller states became oppose to this plan. However, the smaller states quickly answered back proposing the New Jersey Plan asking for “…equal state representation in the national legislature regardless of population (Ginsberg et al. 39).” This disagreement on representation further divided the states and …show more content…
debates continues until a new plan was proposed one which all founding fathers agreed on. Defined by We the People, the Great compromised is ”the agreement reached at the Constitution convention of 1787 that gave each state an equal number of senators regardless of its population but linked representation in the House of Representatives to population (Ginsberg et al. 62).” In other words the Great Compromise created a bicameral legislature creating two chambers: House of Representatives and Senate. Congress was created and broken into two houses the upper and lower house. In the House of Representatives, the members are based on population of each state and in the lower house, senators would be equal regardless of population or size. (Ginsberg et al. 39). As a result a bicameral legislature helped all delegates to agree to the Great Compromise in order to keep the thirteen colonies united and through the house and senate the fathers were able to limit power. For the founding fathers the government’s framework was very crucial in the Constitution. In the documentary U.S Constitution, John Robert’s explains the division of national government. The rights given to the national government were to be made into three divisions and each division was to ensure that their authority remain inside their own domain (U.S Constitution, 2006). The U.S Constitution created what we know today as a legislature, executive and judicial branches. According to John Robert’s separation of powers “was where the main protection of our liberty resides that is their way of preventing the government from becoming too powerful… (U.S Constitution, 2006).” To further emphasize on the point of limited powers the authors in We the People, mentions that the founding fathers wanted to limit democracy so they established some rules they created the bicameral legislature and checks and balances (Ginsberg et al. 42). As a result these two principles helped our government gain support of the people who were skeptical of the new Constitution. The branches of government to this day have helped make laws, execute laws and further understand laws to present day and the next generations to come. Checks and balance is a very important component of the U.S government structure.
According to textbook We the People, checks and balances is a rule to limit abuse of power, each division of government is able to take part in and impact other alternative divisions (Ginsberg et al. 42). This rule of checks and balances makes it possible for our branches to check one another and to limit the abuse of power. In the book We the People, explains “each branch is given not only its own powers but also some power to the other branches. (Ginsberg et al. 47).” In the end you will understand how this concept of checks and balance applies throughout the structure of the U.S
Constitution. After establishing a bicameral legislature the founding fathers had to decide how much power to give to the new government. For Congress they included the powers to “…collect taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce, declare war and to maintain an army and navy (Ginsberg et al. 44).” In providing significant power to Congress the leaders proposed to make a functioning and great government so they included the power necessary and proper clause which in simple terms allows Congress the power to create laws in order to manage and effectively used its expressed powers. (Ginsberg et al. 44).” The necessary and proper clause is the foundation in which Congress has the most power compared to the other branches. This ability also allowed our government to further expand on the laws for future generations to come. Thus, according to the book We the People, “Congress is the most important representative institution in American Government (Ginsberg et al. 275).” The powers of Congress as described by the narrator of the documentary The United States Congress, discusses some of congress’ powers as “…lay and collect taxes. To regulate commerce, coin money, to declare war, to raise and support armies and to create a judicial system (The United States Congress, 1993).” As mentioned before the body of Congress is made up of two houses. The members of the House representative are chosen by Americans every two years and senators are chosen in a statewide vote and serve six years in office (Ginsberg et al. 275). According to the authors of We the People, in order to safeguard and limit democracy the Constitution checks the actions of the House of Representatives with that of the Senate, whose individuals are to be selected by the states rather than the American people. (Ginsberg et al. 43). Thus according to the Ilona Nickels “the senate was design to answer a different question and the question is structure to answer what’s good for the nation (The United States Congress, 1993).” In conclusion, these two power’s the House and Senate further distributes authority and shows how the U.S Constitution is divided between federal and state. The second branch of the government is the executive branch. According to the book We the People, the designer’s objective’s included to expand authority to the national government, president is allowed to welcome diplomats from different countries and has the ability to arrange agreements although two-thirds of the senate are required to approve such agreements. The authors emphasize the Senate’s power to consent on agreements with the executive branch allows the principle of checks and balance, as to ensure the executive branch is not given too much power (Ginsberg et al. 44). Another power provided to the President through the Constitution is “the unconditional right to grant reprieves and pardons, except in cases of impeachment, and the powers to appoint major departmental personnel, to convene Congress in special session, and to veto congressional enactments (Ginsberg et al. 45).” According to We the People the author’s point out, that the veto ability is not totally official since legislature can over turn it with two-thirds of votes by senate, again this demonstrates the writer’s emphasize of the principle of checks and balances (Ginsberg et al. 45). Thus, this department of government is also checked by congress in order to have protections on abuse of power. Lastly, the courts also known as the judicial branch is the third branch created by the founding fathers. According to the authors of We the People, the designers created the principle court of the Country and the national government. The purpose of courts was the ability to determine any disputes between the federal and state law (Ginsberg et al. 45). The judicial branch other power’s include “…the right to determine whether a power is exclusive to the national government, concurrent with the states, or exclusive to the states (Ginsberg et al. 45).” The courts ability to what is called judicial review is the ability to examine the actions by the other branches and determine if they are invalid or unlawful (Ginsberg et al. 382). In conclusion, the principle of checks and balances are demonstrated throughout the structure of the U.S Constitution and the judicial branch is no exception. The fundamental concept of federalism according to We the People is “…a system of two sovereigns- the states and the nation- with the hope that competition between the two would be effective limitation on the power of both (Ginsberg et al. 382)” What this essentially means is power is divided between the national government and state. As mentioned previous the founding fathers framework consist of this key concept. According to the book We the People, the writers of the Constitution tried to restrict the national government by also granting power to the state government (Ginsberg et al. 67). Consequently, federalism was a concept many of the colonist could not trust. However, once the different branches were established and key principles structure of a bicameral legislature and concepts of checks and balances was put into play people began to belief in the U.S Constitution. In addition the tenth amendment protected the right for federalism. In the book We the People states” the tenth amendment says that if the Constitution does not mentioned or found in the Constitution then it the responsibility to the states (Ginsberg et al. 68). These power’s in the book We the People include “…the power to develop and enforce criminal codes, to administer health and safety rules, and to regulate the family via marriage and divorce laws (Ginsberg et al. 68). The division of government within Federal and state and additional protections within the other departments have helped with a secure government in which the people can belief in and trust. Overall, in effectively creating a government for the people of the New World to be able to trust and to have their rights protected the founding fathers established a unique system. The bicameral legislature helped bring states together while protecting their rights and establishing a strong national government. The separation of powers helped secured each division of government by consistently checking each other. From one side you have the national government and state governments both working together in protecting the right of the people and each in charge of governments within their own boundaries. The key concept of checks and balances can be seen in each branch and effectively limiting democracy and protecting the national government from having too much power.
The states, in which Shays rebellion has taken place, were becoming unjust/unfair the way in which the state collected taxes. Since the Articles of Confederation was a complete failure, the founding fathers had to draft the active construction and choose a new system of government. According to article 2 “The state government will retain all powers that are not specifically given to the national Congress.. ” (Williamsburg, 2009)
In the Summer of 1787, fifty-five delegates representing 12 out of the 13 states in Philadelphia to fix the Articles of Confederation. They met in philadelphia because the Articles of Confederation was too weak. Shay’s rebellion was the end of the Articles of Confederation bringing down the whole network calling for a change of government. They did this to prevent a tyrant or tyranny. A tyrant/tyranny is when someone or a group abuses their power. The Constitution guarded against tyranny through Federalism, Separation of powers, Checks and Balances, and The Great Compromise.
Although not widely known, Shays’s Rebellion greatly impacted the debate on sovereignty and led many to conclude that the only possible solution was the centralization of power in a national authority. Historian John Garraty notes, “The lessons became plain: Liberty must not become an excuse for license; and therefore greater authority must be vested in the central government.”[1] While this effect was not the “rebels’” intended goal, Shays’s Rebellion helped shape the construction of the U.S. Constitution and the American political thought that has since followed. An analysis of both the causes and effects of Shays’s Rebellion highlights its contribution to the demise of the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of the Constitution.
The thirteen states formed a Confederation referred to as the “league of friendship” in order to find a solution for common problems such as foreign affairs.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 articles, there wasn’t a strong independent executive. There wasn’t any judicial branch but Congress had the authority to arbitrate disputes between states. Congress was responsible for conducting foreign affairs, declaring war or peace, maintaining an army and navy and a variety of other lesser functions. But the articles denied Congress the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce and enforce laws. Because of this, the central government had to request donations from the states to finance its operations and raise armed forces.
The separation of powers keeps any one branch from gaining too much power by creating 3 separate, distinct branches power can be shared equally among. According to Madison, “Liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.”(Document B) In other words, to avoid tyranny and achieve liberty, the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) must be separate and diverse. The purpose of a separation of powers is to divide the powers of the government so there is not only one central source of power. The three branches must be as distinct as possible to avoid falling into the hands of one individual leader. There are also checks and balances between these three branches. Checks and balances are a system of each branch monitoring an...
Many Americans tried to return to their old lives after the Revolutionary War. It was easy for some, but it was difficult or near impossible for the others. Many farmers had a hard time reverting to their post-revolutionary ways and ordeals, and this proved challenging. Suffering from high debt, farmers in central Massachusetts and western Massachusetts tried to start over and build new lives. The government, on the other hand, did nothing to assist Americans who were trying to return to their lives from the brutality of war. Farmers were put were imprisoned by law enforcement for lack of paying off their debts. All of these issues caused a small rebellion which grew into one of the largest armed rebellions after the Revolutionary War. The leader of the Rebellion, Daniel Shays, later called his band of angry farmers Shays’ Rebellion. Shays’ Rebellion was a poorly planned and unnecessary revolt hurting the cause it meant to help.
“In the first years of peacetime, following the Revolutionary War, the future of both the agrarian and commercial society appeared threatened by a strangling chain of debt which aggravated the depressed economy of the postwar years”.1 This poor economy affected almost everyone in New England especially the farmers. For years these farmers, or yeomen as they were commonly called, had been used to growing just enough for what they needed and grew little in surplus. As one farmer explained “ My farm provides me and my family with a good living. Nothing we wear, eat, or drink was purchased, because my farm provides it all.”2 The only problem with this way of life is that with no surplus there was no way to make enough money to pay excessive debts. For example, since farmer possessed little money the merchants offered the articles they needed on short-term credit and accepted any surplus farm goods on a seasonal basis for payment. However if the farmer experienced a poor crop, shopkeepers usually extended credit and thereby tied the farmer to their businesses on a yearly basis.3 During a credit crisis, the gradual disintegration of the traditional culture became more apparent. During hard times, merchants in need of ready cash withdrew credit from their yeomen customers and called for the repayment of loans in hard cash. Such demands showed the growing power of the commercial elite.4 As one could imagine this brought much social and economic unrest to the farmers of New England. Many of the farmers in debt were dragged into court and in many cases they were put into debtors prison. Many decided to take action: The farmers waited for the legal due process as long as them could. The Legislature, also know as the General Court, took little action to address the farmers complaints. 5 “So without waiting for General Court to come back into session to work on grievances as requested, the People took matters into their own hands.”6 This is when the idea for the Rebellion is decided upon and the need for a leader was eminent.
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.
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...
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 first proposals to this new plan were the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. The Virginia Plan called for a separation of powers among the government’s three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Some states proposed this idea and came up with the New Jersey Plan, which called for all of the states to have equal representation from Congress. In order to move forward from the deadlock of the two proposals, the Connecticut Compromise was enacted. This decided that legislature would be bicameral, which meant that there would be two houses: one would have equal representation and one would be based on state population. This unified the states under a federal system. To this day, there are three types of Fe...
After gaining its independence from England the United States, required a government. The first attempt to create a national government led to the formation of the Articles of Confederation. Though short-lived, the Articles of Confederation marked an important step in the formation of the US government. The Articles of Confederation were ratified by the states in 1781 after approval by Congress in 1777 (Johnson, 2003). The main objective of the Articles of Confederation was to unite different states and form a common national government (Johnson, 2003). As a result of their formation, the Articles set up a confederation which gave more power to the states. However, the Articles of Confederation were perceived to be weak and lacked the required power to run the country effectively. As a result, problems arose which led to the development of the New Constitution in 1787 which advocated for a government with more unity and power.
The principle of separation of powers is laid out in Articles I, II, and III, in effort to avoid tyranny. It is a part of a system called check and balances. The check and balances play the roles of the three branches of government. This system was made so that no one branch will over power the other. The three branches come together and help one another by being independent of the other. The legislative branch consists of the Congress, the judicial branch consists of the courts, and the executive branch consists of the president. For an example, when a bill is in progress and the chief executive (president or governor) does not approve of it, he can reject legislation and return it to the legislature with reasons for the rejection. This is a process called veto power.