Differences Between The Articles Of Confederation And The Constitution

The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States were both used as a means for forming a functioning government. However, after a few years the new citizens realized that the Articles of Confederation was not government responsibility for the country and that any changes that needed to be made would have to have an agreement amongst all the states. I will describe four the of the changes between the Articles of Confederation and the current Constitution and why those changes were better institutional designs.
First, one the major points in the Articles of Confederation was that the federal government could not collect taxes and it was up to the states to collect said taxes based on the relative value of the land in

This proved to be difficult since the federal government could not levy taxes and therefore had to resort to begging and pleading with the state to submit their share of the taxes that they collected in order to provide the mutual defense and costs associated in paying off the debts of war. The federal government had no power to enforce the collection of taxes. One of the major changes in the current Constitution was the ability of the federal government to collect taxes and enforce the collection of taxes. The ability to collect and enforce collection of taxes was a better institutional design cause the government could provide services to its citizens without many free loading citizens and states.
Second, in the Articles of Confederation was considered unicameralism which meant that the legislature only had one chamber or deciding body. This limited the representation from each state to only a select few representatives with each state only having one vote. This also allowed for factions of people to take over and push their political beliefs. The unicameralism design was supposed to make the government more efficient and cost less to

The bicameralism design was a better institutional design due to the fact that it served to better give representation at the national level to citizens of different classes of societies and regions. The bicameralism design was also more institutionally effective because it allowed a checks and balances system where as one group could not strictly dominate and be pushed by popular ways of thinking at the time. In this system, each state would have representation based upon their population in one house and the states would each have two representatives in the other. One advantage of this system was that the citizens would have varied representation, however with the senate it would not be as influenced as the house since their terms were longer and usually their decisions were not based on immediate popular opinion but based on what was good for the citizens and could hinder legislation that appeared to be flawed or reckless.
Third, the Constitution was designed to be able to change or be amended as times evolved. However, to change the Constitution is a difficult process and has only been amended a handful of times. The requirement to amend the Constitution did not require all states and representatives agreeing as it was required in the Articles of Confederation. This was a better institutionally design since it could evolve as the nation