The Articles of Confederation were created as a new central government form after the American Revolution. The Articles still consisted of problems, specifically financial ones. Hamilton proposed a plan that would put U.S. finances on a stable foundation. He planned to lower national debt and strengthen the national credit because he believed that "a national debt was a national blessing". However, some people, such as Jefferson and small farmers opposed his ideas, because they believed in states' rights and a strict interpretation of the constitution, which led to the split of two different political parties.
This is where the Constitution of the United States of America was born and with it came the opposing views of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists were strong believers in the Constitution, and believed that this was the only way to achieve a just society where people could have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Federalists were generally wealthy citizens whose profession, in most cases, was law, such as Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton, who studied law before becoming a politician. The supporters of this faction followed suit being “[p]ropertied and educated people" (National Constitution Center: Home). According to the Federalists, if the Constitution had parts to it that didn't work, it could be amended.
So Virginia made a deal with the government which was the government would take on state debts if the District of Columbia was placed on the Potomac River. The deal was passed by Congress in 1790. With the United States having a major debt of $75 million Hamilton was very worried about the welfare of the country. To pay off some of the debt, Hamilton first proposed custom duties. In this intention, he expected tariff revenues to pay interest on the huge debt and run the
President Woodrow Wilson wrote “the he Constitution of the United States is not a mere lawyers’ document, it is a vehicle of life and its spirit is always the spirit of the age.” One must keep this fact in mind when comparing the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. There was a vast difference in the “spirit of the age” when these documents were drafted. Coming on the heels of the Declaration of Independence and the war against England, and afraid of a dictatorship or a government that did not listen to its people, the Articles of Confederation (which will be referred to as AoC) were written it a way that gave more power to the states. The problem with this type of government was that it was too difficult to enact or enforce laws and the government could not collect enough taxes to support itself. 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.
Even though the changes proposed in the Constitution were essential to the survival of the nation, the Articles of Confederation also had some positive and effective measures. Some of the strengths of the Articles included the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 while some of the weaknesses of the Articles amended in the Constitution are the power of taxation, and establishment of the executive branch of government. One of the changes in the Constitution that addressed and mended the weakness of the articles was the power of taxation. Originally the Articles of Confederation stated that only states alone could levy taxes (Doc C). This weakness was later addressed and amended in the constitution, when it granted the federal government all powers of taxation (Doc C).
But the basics of their philosophies were the same. The Jacksonian Democracy during 1820s to the 1840s was the way America was ran by President Thomas Jefferson. Being a former common man, Jefferson gave more power to those in his former position and limited the power of the aristocracies which created a balance. Jackson believed in the power of the president and the constitution that gives him the presidential power. This power caused principles in Jacksonian Democracy including Manifest Destiny.
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.
Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not these documents should or should not be passed and what power is justified. It is these different ideas which helped shape the future of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists, such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, were against ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the closer the government was to the people, the easier it was for the people to keep it in check and making it harder for the government to become tyrannical. Anti-Federalist tried to appeal to western settlers with ideas of voting right to everyone and not just rich land holders.
Many of the states were concerned about the government having too much power, and by allowing the citizens more power than just what was stated in the Bill of Rights, it ensures that the government will remain in check. The tenth amendment took power away from the federal government and gave more power to the states. This is what makes the American constitution so unique because it restricts the main government, unlike how it was in Britain. This was the most important addition to many representatives, as they would not sign the constitution because they feared the government would overpower the states, and it would be a repeat of everything they were trying to free themselves from. Luckily, the tenth amendment has made sure that will never
On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation. In my opinion, as in many others, Judicial Activism is just an excuse for justices to rule based on personal opinion. The judicial branch of the government needs to show judicial restraint because of the variety of the cases they receive. They need to make sure that the rulings they enact are rulings that follow the constitution and not their own personal beliefs as they have been doing for some time now. In my opinion, the most important example of judicial restraint being in need in American history occurred on May 20, 1940.