Pros And Cons Of The Articles Of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation had many weaknesses as well as positives. From the pros side we have Josh DiGiorgio and Jacob Chrispim. From the cons side we have Grayson Jons and Lexi Rosmarin. We will start with the cons.

Federalists believed the Constitution provided just the right mix of power and limitations. The federalists wanted to make sure the central government either had more or less power. The first government of the US was a one-house legislature with no executive. It couldn't raise money, it relied on the states for military power, and was generally seen as ineffective and weak. The US Constitution was written to remedy those weaknesses and provide the US with a better, more representative form of government.

It is 1787, and the Framers of the Constitution have a daunting decision to make. The United States of America is a free nation, but a new system of government needs to be established. The first attempt has already failed; the Articles of Confederation has proven to be too weak to govern the nation and deal with its problems. This new government should be strong enough to rule over all the States while allowing each of the States to maintain sovereignty. Eventually, the Framers decide on a federal government, which divides power between the central government and regional governments.

A perpetual, age old question: where does the power go? The debate of whether certain rights belong to the state or the federal government has been argued in America since its creation up to modern times. Out of necessity during the war, The Articles of Confederation were created, and shortly after that, The Constitution of the United States was written in light of the imperfections of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation originated the Federal versus states’ rights debate in America, giving the states large amounts of power, and congress almost none. The Constitution of the United States furthered the debate later on creating tensions between those who favored states’ rights and were against the ratification of the

I am Jonathan Dayton, hailing from New Jersey, and I am a Federalist. I am here today at the Constitutional Convention to discuss the pros and cons of the our nation’s governing documents. I will be speaking in favor of a constitution rather than articles of confederation. Speaking as a Federalist, I see some flaws in the Articles of the Confederation. One feature of the Articles of Confederation is that the power of voting would be in the hands of the people.

When political leaders met in Philadelphia to figure out how they could strengthen the Articles of Confederation they soon realized that they needed to replace the entire thing with the US Constitution. Those that did not support the constitution were became known as the anti-federalist and those that supported it were known as the Federalists. The federalist wrote the Federalists Papers that were published in newspapers trying to gain support for the constitution. Two states, Massachusetts and South Carolina wrote up a resolution list to ratify the Constitution in order to get them to support it. Both states wanted “all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution to be reserved to the several States to be by them exercised” (Avalon Project, 1788).

Article’s of Confederation Essay Article’s of Confederation Essay There are many problems with our government system. The Article’s of Confederation are poor, there are differences between governments; and the country does not have a constitution. What is happening to the United States of America right now? There are multiple problems with the Article’s of Confederation.

The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.

Federalists were known to support “loose construction” of the constitution which is defined by Oxford Dictionary as “A broad interpretation of a statute or document by a court.” Federalists believe that when making decisions in a court or when writing laws, they should be only based on the constitution rather than following the words of the constitution strictly. Due to the fact that the Constitution was signed in 1787, it would not be realistic years later to continue to completely and solely follow the constitution word by word because of our ever changing society and the Federalists realized this. I personally find that the Federalists were more realistic when choosing what to and not to

As it applies to the Articles of Confederation there were many weaknesses in the way it went about governing the United States. For one, the loose federation of the states was too weak to act as a foundation to be considered or act as a central government. In addition the state legislatures had too much power and in turn had the ability to influence economic issues of all kinds. This strong legislature is the same one that allowed for mob ruling and actions by debtors. The Articles of confederation were also weak because the required congress to have all 13 colonies in agreement when a new tax was to be passed.

Federalists favored an efficient government that could improve and protect their economic status. The Constitution promises a strong centralized government with a checks and balances system to even out

A federalist is defined as a person that believes in the Constitution as it is, and argues for ratification. An anti-federalist, however, believes that there needs to be adjustments within the Constitution. While both the anti-federalists and federalists contributed to the Constitution’s success, anti-federalists created the most conflict and elaboration of the Constitution and aimed for success in many years to come. Anti-federalists argued to include the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. George Mason describes the importance of the Bill of Rights in “Objections to the Constitution”.

The Articles of the Confederation was the first government constitution that the United States used, and, although there were strength like the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, there were major weaknesses of the Articles of the Confederation like the following: requiring 9 out of the 13 colonial votes from the representatives from different states to pass a law; having no executive and judicial branch; and the federal government being unable to impose tax revenue onto the states. Such flaws would eventually lead to the Constitution and the repeal of the articles, for the Constitution was a measure to fix the problems of the articles with a stronger government that allowed them to impose taxes and and implement new laws for a more effective government.

These people are known as federalists and antifederalists. The federalists are the people that support the constitution. These people believe that the constitution is the best way for the country to prosper. It is the only way to make sure this country stays the way it is. On the other side of the argument are the anti-federalists.

The Federalist’s belief to ratify the new proposed Constitution is the best position for our country because it would protect the safety and liberty of the citizens, and a new government needed to be established that had greater national-level powers. Before the new Constitution, states had their own governments, laws, and disciplinary tactics/actions. There was a national government, but it didn’t have nearly as much power or control over the states as it did after the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution gave the nation a sense of unity, because now all power was divided between the federal government and the many individual state governments. A strong central government was necessary if the states were going to band together to form