DBQ Essay The United States Constitution is a document that or founding fathers made in order to replace the failing Articles of Confederation (A of C). Under the Constitution, the current government and states don’t have the problems they faced when the A of C was in action. The Constitution was created in 1788, and held an idea that the whole nation was nervous about. This idea was a strong national government, and the Federalist assured the people that this new government would work. The framers of the Constitution decided to give more power to the Federal government rather than the state governments because the A of C had many problems, there was a need for the layout of new government, rights, and laws, and there was a need for the Federal
I Agree… “The Federalist No. 84” and “The Anti-Federalist No.84”, both have their views on what should happen to our government. Whether it is to add a bill of rights or not, but I agree with the writer of “The Federalist No.84” because if the Constitution is adopted, then it will be our Bill of Rights, also based on other countries’ bill of rights then it may argue with a semblance of reason. Because I have read both sides of the discussion, I can see who is wrong and why.
The Articles of Confederation was structured to give the majority power to the States while limiting the involvement of Government. The federal government was bestowed with the responsibility of mutual defense for the states and to “secure the blessings of liberty.” Government was supposed to be able to pass acts, however, each state was only permitted one representative regardless of that state’s population and votes needed to be unanimous for an act to pass. The power of the central government was vague and nearly unenforceable. Without a judicial system the federal government was unable to enforce penalties or consequences and without the ability to collect tax they could not finance the government meetings let alone the military to defend
Roche says the Founding Fathers did not only care about the states, but also the world around them. Roche states that the Founding Fathers were concerned with world issues, “…were compelled to listen to the reports of Secretary John Jay and to the dispatches and pleas from their frustrated envoys in Britain, France, and Spain” (paragraph 8). The Founding Fathers wanted equality for all the states in the Union. Roche uses a quote from the Constitution stating that the Founding Fathers wanted all thirteen states to be completely equal, “…that a map of the U.S. be spread out, that all the existing boundaries be erased, and that a new partition of the whole be made into 13 equal parts” (paragraph
There are quite a few people who argue that the Articles of Confederation are unacceptable for the United States, however there are people who question whether they are or are not unnaceptable. These people think that since there was no single leader to tell them what to do, since each state had one vote in congress, and since the congress was allowed to deal with westered lands, that the articles were acceptable. “[The articles of confederation] had no executive or judicial branch, the Confederation could not levy taxes, [and] all states had to agree before the Articles could be changed…” Regardless, the Articles of Confederation were unsuitable for the United States because there was no judicial or executive branches, all the states had
Those fond of the Articles and against the Constitution thought that America worked better as a nation where the states had more power than the national, or federal, government. However, seeing that the Articles of Confederation are no longer in effect, but rather
Since the United States was relatively a new nation, it needed some form of organization to hold the states together and keep its government and society stable to build a stronger economy (Knoedl, 2003). The first and foremost inherited weakness of the Articles came from the fact that it replaced sovereign power in the hands of the states. This started after the American Revolution, when the American people feared that the colonists would form a new government that could function similarly to King George III’s monarchy after having dealt with the British Crown for years. Since then these states would start creating their own set of rules and laws and because of some states, creating their own constitutions and each state can rule itself, it gave more power to them than the actual Federal Government.
The primary weakness of the Articles of Confederation is that each state retained all sovereignty over itself. Sovereignty is defined as ultimate authority over someone, something, or someplace. Although the National Government had enough power, it gave too much to the states. This lead to a plethora of problems that harmed the government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation. One example of this was the states did not have to pay the government taxes.
After reading the comparison of the U.S. Constitution and the Articles of Confederation it seems that the two documents were trying to endorse freedom to me. When comparing the Articles and the Constitution people realize that it was full of drawbacks, then after of while they had answers for all the drawbacks they had. The Articles of Confederation was blame for the actual evidences that the powers are in the hands of the state government and left no major powers for the national government. The Constitution made the provision for executive and judicial branches of the government; to some degree in the Articles of Confederation something didn’t go smooth. The federal government wants for the states authorization to raise an army as per the
Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was given authority to declare war, make peace, make treaties and alliances, to coin or borrow money, and to regulate trade with the Native Americans (Ginsberg 35). Moreover, the central government had no power to levy taxes or regulate commerce among the states with the Articles of Confederation (Ginsberg 35). Not to mention, States also retained governmental powers under the Articles of Confederation (Ginsburg 36). In which, States conserved their dominance under Article of Confederation, as Article II states, “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled ” (Ginsberg 36). Under this well-established sovereignty, States, for the most part, had the capability to install their own militia, industries, general welfare, money, and
The Constitution however proposes that the country should have a dual legislature which means that the country should have all authority in the hands of the federal government. The founding fathers wanted the states to operate together for the country as a whole but at the same time they wanted them to expand and establish themselves as separate entities. However, both the founding documents have a sense to promote independence of the states but also allow them to function together for the mutual protection of the
I agree with Marshall’s argument that the Tenth Amendment only allows the states authority in areas not delegated to the federal government, and that the federal government is not limited to its enumerated powers alone. I feel that this would make for an unproductive federal government, especially as the role of the government has expanded and changed throughout the decades. However, the state of Illinois did not argue that the federal government could not pass the Motor Voter Act under the Times, Places and Manner Clause. It allowed for the act to remain in place for federal candidates, but not for state candidates. I believe it would be reasonable to allow the states to regulate their own candidates, which Illinois did.
The government didn’t want to create a tyranny, so they thought giving the country their own amount of power would help. Instead people broke laws left and right, and when someone went to court for a crime, each system was different. Meaning that each state had it’s own approach, so you could be charged as guilty in one state, and innocent in the next. This is shown in the drawing Rough Sailing Ahead by McDougal Littel. It depicts waves such as “No national court system,” and “No power to create taxes,” as one of the problems faced under the Articles.
As the authors of the American Constitution came together in Philadelphia in 1787, they sought to appeal to a divided nation. They faced the daunting task of bridging the gap between local and national control, allowing Americans to overcome their fear of central power by leading citizens away from smaller state sovereignty and toward a common goal of one united nation. In this document, the founding fathers appealed to the political viewpoints of both Federalists and Antifederalists with the goal of establishing a common ground from which to govern. The document was important to the time period because it was the first time that the established colonies were coming together to form a united nation, rather than thirteen separate colonies.
Since the Articles could not solve the rivalry among the thirteen states, the Constitution replaced it in the year 1787 as there was a necessity of establishing a strong and powerful national government. There are various notable similarities and differences between the Articles
