Therefore, people no longer had to worry about changing the currency when crossing into other states. Another problem with the Articles of Confederation was that it allowed each individual state to have its own militia. This was a problem because each army was small and run by different people, and the states did not have sufficient funds to arm their men adequately. The Constitution corrected this failure by raising and supporting armies, providing and maintaining a navy, and designating the President of the United States as the commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Federal Government now has the right to organize, arm, and discipline the militia.
The national government was weak and disconnected, and the federal powers were greatly lacking. After the drafting of the Articles of Confederation, the system controlling domestic affairs was heavily flawed. The federal government was given little power while the states were almost autonomous, creating the root of all problems for the struggling central authority. As a result of the decentralized government, Congress had no authority to impose taxes or regulate domestic and foreign affairs. There was no national court system to settle interstate disputes, forcing settlements to occur in the courts of one of the states involved.
Another weakness of the Articles of Confederation was its inability to levy taxes. Congress was unable to tax the states and, as a result, was unable to reduce the growing debt or provide a national military. In a letter to Congress, in 1782, Rhode Island rejected a federal taxation proposal from Congress saying the amount requested was “unequal in its operation, bearing hardest on the most commercial states.” Rhode Island thought such amount would negatively affect the economy of their state (Doc A). Since the power to tax was given to the individual states and not the federal government, the articles had no way of enforcing such a proposed tax.
Federalists V. the Anti- Federalists After the American Revolution, the United States was free of British control and their first attempt at a formal government was a document titled: The Articles of Confederation. Many believed that under the Articles of Confederation enough power was not given to the central government, while many others believed that too much power was given to the state government. One result of the Articles of Confederation was that the Philadelphia Convention was called in the summer of 1787. The convention was originally called to help strengthen The Articles of Confederation, but it was later decided that a whole new constitution needed to be written. 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.
Marbury doesn’t get the commission. In a unanimous decision, written by Justice Marshall, the Court stated that Marbury, indeed, had a right to his commission. But, more importantly, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. In Marshall's opinion, Congress could not give the Supreme Court the power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission. Only the Constitution could, and the document said nothing about the Supreme Court having the power to issue such an order.
Anti-Federalist felt that the Constitution gave more power to central government and less to the states. They also argued that the constitution would become too weak because the central government wouldn’t be able to run all states as a result of being too distant and removed from interest of common citizens and farmers. They feared that the Federalists' new government would be too similar to the harsh regimes of Europe which held great power and thus repressed the people. Anti-Feds were extremely scared of a strong central government and the fact that under the new Constitution, the federal government was more powerful than individual states. Another argument was that the states could not print money
In oder to prevent this separation of powers was brought into play with a set of checks and balances that prevented the legislative, executive, and judiciary each power over the other. An example of this would be if representatives in congress became corrupt saying that everyone must fore fit there money to them, this could not happen and be prevented because the executive branch can
Some political issues that arose from the ratification of the Constitution were that it gave the central government way too much power. It also lacked civil rights for the citizens and it didn’t have enough states behind it to elect the first president, therefore George Washington was appointed as the first President of the United States. When the ratification of the Constitution went through two major political parties were formed, the Federalists (Alexander Hamilton, believed in a strong central government and less power for the states) and the Anti-Federalists (Thomas Jefferson, believers in a weak central government and more individual powers to the states). These two political parties had different interpretations on who would have the final authority within the nation. Federalist were strong supporters of a powerful central government and limiting the powers of states individually, while the Anti-Federalists thought that a weak central government and more power to each state would benefit the nation better.
The weapon of the LegCo is to veto government bills, or to turn down the requests for financial appropriation by the executive government. After all, our LegCo does not exercise a genuine legislative power but a veto power. It actually plays a much stronger monitoring rather than legislative and policymaking role. In order to ensure that the legislators would pass the bills or the financial requests, officials have to persuade the elected representatives and their parties to accept government proposals, resulting in bargaining and compromise. Our elected legislators do not have to be responsible for the effectiveness of policies.
He thought that the government would be given too much power. His thoughts on the injustices in the Constitution greatly influenced the making of the Bill of Rights. At the time, Federalists argued that the Constitution didn’t need a bill of rights, due to the fact that the people and states kept any powers not given to the federal government, but Anti-Federalists said that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. So when the Bill of Rights was made it listed prohibitions on governmental power and the rights that were granted to people. When the Bill of Rights was adopted into the Constitution it was became the fundamental rights of all citizens in 1791.