If the new United States were to continue with the Articles of Confederation (articles that made states independent and also had a central government with little power) then the nation would dissolve. So, after many arguments, the constitution was made. This constitution gave rights, it gave liberty, and it gave freedom to all who had suffered under the British monarchy and it would keep people free for generations and generations to come. This key item made such significance because those who had suffered under corrupt ruling, by the British, were finally free, they finally could say something and use their god given right. And this constitution supported them, and gave them a life worth
The move from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution wasn't a consistent one, and settling the issues of the Articles of Confederation required a progression of protracted level-headed discussions both amid and after the convention. In any case, one thing was sure, something must be changed. Fifty-Five Delegates met at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to decide how best to change the current archive. The ratification of the constitution was very important to the states and I would vote to adopt the it. The constitution enabled and built up the Federal Government.
Due to money shortage, farmers from Massachusetts were unable to pay their taxes and debts, thus, leading to a rebellion by Daniel Shay. The farmers then attacked the nation's arsenal. As a result, congress realized they were too weak to stop them and they were shocked into calling a convention where they would later make a new constitution. Naturally, the idea of a new constitution sparked a clash of ideas between the anti-federalists and federalists with a debate on whether or not this new constitution should be ratified. Though, I believe, the people of the United States should not ratify the Constitution because it gives the opportunity and time for the president to seize power and establish tyranny over our beloved country.
The absence of power given to the Continental Congress debilitated the national government. The Articles enabled Congress to affirm laws, yet no ability to apply those laws. In the event that a state did not help a government law, that state can simply neglect it. Congress had no ability to force taxes or direct exchange. Without a government court framework or an official leader, there would be no real way to implement these laws.
But many problem still challenged this new nation. After the Article of Confederation failing due to the weakness of the central government, the different states had to develop a new a form of government. But the different states did not seem to be agreeing on one single plan, the bigger states want the government to work in their favor, and the smaller states wanted equal representation in the government despite of size, wealth and population. All the delegates from the different states had to work together and make many different compromised to all agree one a well-drafted constitution. However, the ratification of this Constitution still faced many issues, some states wanted more individual state power and rights granted to individual American citizens.
If anything, we would’ve not existed had we stayed under that document. According from an excerpt from the Constitutional Convention 1774- 1789, I quote,” As the articles of confederation are silent upon this subject, any further than by fixing the number of delegates for each state, and by declaring how many shall constitute a representation, the committee presume such silence was in consequence of a firm reliance that the states could not be inattentive to a duty only essential to the interests of each state, but likewise to a principle on which the federal government itself rests. The articles of confederation requiring, for certain purposes, the agreement of nine states, and as it has seldom happened more than that number have attended, the committee conceive, that not only the injury
Was a new Constitution really that necisary? Of course the answer was yes; with the states being in the 'state' that they were in, many things were put to risk. Foreign affairs, for example, would be hindered due to the inability to be taken seriously as a nation. Riots between states would insue, the overall possibility of falling apart was a major concern. In a letter to Rev. William Gordon, our first President George Washington says this: "...
The United States Constitution was written in seventeen eighty seven to address governmental weaknesses that existed in the Articles of the Confederation, the first articles written during the Revolutionary War to establish regulations for a unified government. The Constitution not only established law, it incorporated basic rights for citizens and dictated to what extent the government could rule. Albeit an improvement to the Articles of the Confederation, according to “The Great Debate”, in order for the Constitution to go into effect, “ratification from nine states” was required. Gaining full support of nine states for ratification was not an easy feat; the changes to the Articles created a divide amongst delegates, the two sides were
It gave the country the inability to form a army, it just wasn’t one of the right of the central government under this constitution. The congress had little to no money, often they would ask individual states for money, and a lot of the times they didn’t receive as much as they asked for. It was also difficult for the people up north to create and pass a law since nine of the thirteen states have to agree upon the new law, which was very hard to get them to do. With this constitution there wasn’t even a national government which means that if a problem had come upon two states it would be settled in one there
After the Articles of Confederation failed because they failed to give enough power to the national government and congress, our founding father’s needed to reflect on its flaws for a new system to be set in place. Their new creation, our Constitution, was then set into place, and was created from a basis of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation directly influence the Constitution by its failure by changing some of the responsibilities of the federal and state governments. The Articles of Confederation gave too much power to the states, and the Constitution changed that.
The colonies that currently compose the British claims in North America are forced to make a decision. We have been under the oppressive rule of Europe for too long. Our minor claims for self-rule and independence have seemingly been laughed at by our English counterparts, and without decisive action we will remain stagnant in our goals. Although there are flaws in the currently proposed constitution, we must accept what we have written and continue to work towards a more perfect union. The currently proposed constitution has come from months of progress and many meetings of The Constitutional Convention.
Ever since the Constitution was written, chaos has ensued. The states have split into two sides: the Anti-federalists, who oppose the Constitution, and the Federalists, who support the Constitution—both of whom have argued in writings, such as the Federalist Papers. Anti-federalists rightfully believe that a president has enough power to become a tyrant, similar to British kings in the past. Therefore, they request for a Bill of Rights to be added, ensuring that the citizens have power in government as well, in order for them to ratify the Constitution. The Anti-federalists are supported by Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Massachusetts, while the Federalists are prominent in Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey,
I feel that the US Constitution is somewhat outdated, and is in need of a revision. As everybody knows, the world has changed a lot in the past 250 years. These changes are things like transportation, total number of people in the world, and major things like the internet and technology. The events and problems that the Constitution solved years ago are a lot different than the problems that we face today. However, some of the more universal and basic rules of the constitution should not be subject to change because they still apply to today.
It could be argued that as the history of the United States has unfolded, the ratification of the Constitution was relatively successful. One might also argue that the Document Americans hold so sacred was ratified with the wrong intent in the first place. Nonetheless, the state representatives chosen to vote on the ratification had a substantial task in front of them. Had I been one of those representatives, I believe that I would have voted against the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of rights left in the hands of individual states, the absence of term regulations for elected presidents, and the turn away from a truly republican governmental system. Based on the political climate of the late 1700s surrounding the state representatives
The Articles of Confederation had a very weak central government so the rights of the people would be secure. The Articles of Confederation was ratified by
