Despite its weaknesses, the Articles of Confederation provided the new states with an effective government considering what it was set up to do. There is no question that the Articles were not a good form of running a country correctly for the long run and there were too many flaws in it, but, when you look at what the Americans just came from under rule in Britain the Articles were “effective.” The arguments that the Articles of Confederation was not effective depends on how you define the word effective here. If, in order to be effective, in would have had to unite the states all under one rule held by a higher power then yes, the Articles were definitely not effective. An example of the Articles not having one strong central power was the fact that, in order to pass a law, nine out of the thirteen states needed to agree. Things like this, among others, ultimately caused “fluctuation and distress” among the people of the states (Document G).
(http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.art.html) James Madison wanted an even stronger national government. He didn't want there to be complete separate states, there wouldn't be anything like a Shay's rebellion again, because there would be strong central government. Among other things, he wanted the government to be strong, which should be the case. People saw how the Articles failed, and with what Madison wanted, it wouldn't be the case of things going wrong again with a strong national government with checks and balances. The Articles of Confederation was the first type of constitution in the United States.
They believed that, the people cannot govern themselves, nor protect their collective rights, without a strong central government. A representative few must guard against the confusions of the multitude and only a strong central government can ensure that states participate in the general good. A single executive, or the president, would govern much more efficiently than multiple executives from different states. It would further guard against corruption within the Government. With this Constitution, the Federalists believed that it protected the public good and did not need a Bill or Rights as an independent judiciary to secure the rights of all.
Although these things are important, congress has lost there power and right to do what they were originally set out to do. This is mainly because of the growth of the presidential branch and their constitutional rights expanding. I feel that congress should have the right to do their job the way our founding fathers set out for that position to be handled. The founding fathers seperated government into two branches so that no branch would ever have more power than the other. However that is clearly no longer the case the executive branch has truly gained more power than that of congress and their growth has significantly affected congress by making them the weaker
The Error of Madison’s Plan to Extend the Republic James Madison was a federalist, who believed the Articles of Confederation were insufficient in the governing of the new United States. Madison supported the ratification of the constitution, and proposed a plan as a solution to the threat of a majority faction. A majority faction is a group of people who are the majority in a population, united by a common goal, interest, etc., that may be motivated to “invade the rights of other citizens”. Madison’s proposal to extend the republic was unviable. Federalists believed in a strong federal government.
First, the Federalists loosely followed the Constitution while the Jeffersonians strictly followed it. In addition to these contrasting views on the Constitution, there was a growing opposition to Hamilton’s economic plan. Finally, the Jeffersonians believed in a limited central government where people had more liberty (document c) and the Federalists believed in a strong central government, while fearing excessive liberty
In 1787 anti-federalism became a well-known movement in opposition to Federalist ideology. Anti-federalists, like Thomas Jefferson, wanted a strict interpretation of the Constitution where in laws could not be passed unless the Constitution allowed it. They feared that a strong government would overpower the people and their natural rights; therefore they favored a weaker national government. One of their greatest worries was the idea that a dominant president could evolve into a monarch, similar to that of the British King, if he were given an excessive amount of power. The Articles of Confederation promised the States more authority than the National Government, as advocated by the anti-federalists.
Many of us don’t know that our vote really doesn’t count, because most of us don’t know that the Electoral College exists. The Electoral College a body of people consisting of mainly Senators and other governmental officials representing the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president. The Electoral College came about because of the efforts of the “state righters” of 1787 to preserve as much of the Articles of Confederation as possible. This was put in place to ensure the power goes more to the state than the people. They succeeded in a provision allowing state legislatures to elect the members of the Senate.
The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, but it was not ratified until 1790. Members of Congress believed that the first government set up by the states called the Articles of Confederation, needed to be changed while others did not want change it. After the Revolutionary War, they needed a strong central government. However the Articles of Confederation were not meeting the needs of Americans, which meant they were in need for a new Constitution. This desired Constitution created a huge argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
Congress gets the Bill of Rights which James Madison was originally against, but then changed sides. He became one of the biggest supporters for the Bill of Rights and was the one who ended up writing it. All of the states agreed to ratify the constitution, but then began arguing for the Bill of Rights. This is where the Federalists and Opponents to the Constitution began to choose sides. The Federalists felt that we were vulnerable with the absence of a Bill of