Compare the strengths and weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation to those of the Constitution. Which document did a better job at protecting liberties? Which document did a better job at running a government? Explain your answer with specific examples The Articles of Confederation was drafted in 1777, but was not ratified by all the states until March 1st, 1781. At the time, the states feared a strong central government, for this reason, the Continental Congress tried to give the states as much independence as possible.
Madison strongly encouraged a strong central government. He knew that absence of unity between the states and the lack of federal power under The Articles of Confederation negatively affected the entire country. Madison made sure that the new constitution would force the states to work together for a common goal instead of doing things for only their own individual benefit. After the Constitution was ratified in 1788, Madison started working on the first amendments to the Constitution. This
So a chosen few were helped make this conceivable, the Founding Fathers. The principal Founding Father and furthermore known as our first President would be George Washington. Other than him being most fit for the main leader of the United States, there are such a significant number of more explanations behind his commitment to the Constitution. He had understanding from the Revolutionary War, and from that it persuaded Washington that over the top worries for states' rights and states purview would be deadly to a successful national government. He was at that point understanding that states' rights were essential which winds up noticeably crucial when choosing our new government for the United States.
Jefferson believed in a strict view of the constitution while he was an advisor. When he became president, his view changed. He supported a more loose view of the document in accordance with his policies. In order for the Constitution to be understood, the chaos around the time it was written must be first understood. Yet that chaos in not the same as now, therefore the constitution must be interpreted loosely in a way that it fits society nowadays.
Outline Although the founding of the Constitution was a revolutionary, positive turning-point in American history, the US Constitution has a few unconstitutional and democratic shortcomings. Introduction In order to understand the shortcomings of democracy of the US Constitution, is it is important to know the background of its’ founding and how each article serves our country. Federalist No. 10, written by James Madison, asserts the importance of having the image of a democracy without its real substance. There seems to have been a very strong opposition towards democracy at the Constitutional Convention, although the framers were in the midst of creating democratic principles to appeal to the majority of the country.
I believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes. Alexander Hamilton, statesman and economist, proclaimed "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation”. The Articles of Confederation which gave rise to the Confederation government that took effect in March 1781, did not give the national government any means to enforce the federal laws. The states could, and often did, choose to interpret or enforce federal laws in any manner they saw fit. This led to disputes amongst the states that could not be readily settled, as it relied on each state’s court system which invariably chose to discount the ruling of the other states.
During the period from which the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787 and the ratification in1789, Americans were involved in passionate debate on ratification. Though the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, it lays the framework for the organization of the United States Government and its citizens. But some felt that the Constitution did not protect the individual rights of citizen well enough, this brought around the Bill of Rights. During this period, the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist, which were the two different factions in contention for power of the government had different ideas of what the Constitution, Bill of Rights and powers of government should be. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not these documents should or should not be passed and what power is justified.
Confederation and Constitution Both the article of Confederation and the New Constitution of 1787 had their strength and weaknesses. The article of Confederation has given the state a lot of power, which will lead to the New Constitution. Many believe that was the right thing to do, in the next paragraph we will compare the strength and weakness of both and also look in details why they had to go with the New Constitution of 1787. The article of Confederation was first adopted on November 15, 2007 by the United States. The thirteen states had to make some ratification of it and that didn’t occur until March 1, 1781.
Federalists Versus Anti-Federalists HIS/110CA University of Phoenix 07/31/2014 Federalists Versus Anti-Federalists During the state conventions that considered whether to adopt the Constitution that had been written in the Philadelphia Convention, Federalists were for the adoption of the Constitution while Anti-federalists were some of them against adopting it and other for adopting it only if it was first amended. Federalists wanted a strong central government that would rule the people of the United States directly and not through the state governments. Anti-federalists wanted a weak central government that would serve the governments of the states by performing those functions of government that could be better preformed by one authority than by 13 different authorities, such as defense and diplomacy. Other functions of government would be performed by the states, not by the federal government. Federalist were for a system of strong federal courts while Anti-federalists were for limits on the federal courts.
This essay plans to illustrate the pros and cons of a codified constitution and answers the original question; should Britain adopt a codified constitution? The main argument against a written constitution is that Britain has survived very well without one and that the strength of an unwritten constitution is its ability to evolve according to circumstances because it is not set in stone. The Conservatives would say that “if it aint broke, don’t fix it” As well as being flexible, the current system also has a number of informal checks and balances built into it, mostly based on convention, so that there is a degree of balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, which suggests a written constitution would be unnecessary. An example might be the