Confederation and Constitution Essay Example for Free

Confederation and Constitution Essay The Articles of Confederation, formally known as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, refers to an agreement between the thirteen founding states that first formed the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states. The Articles of Confederation had served as the first U.S. constitution (Merrill, 1959). The states under the confederation were Virginia, South Carolina, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Delaware and Maryland. In 1787, a constitutional convention was called to revise the Articles of Confederation as they contained so many flaws, which would have fatally affected the confederation (Wendel, 1981). However, the convention ended up abandoning the Articles and drafted a new constitution which had a much stronger national government. After so much tussle and debating, eleven of the thirteen states ratified the constitution which led to the formation of a new form of government for the United States of America (Kermit, 1987). The following are similarities and differences of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Consenting of power According to the Articles of Confederation, the legislature of each state had no specific means of choosing voters. The delegates of each state were to sign the Articles, but only do as directed by their legislature (Young, 1977). Their legislature did not provide for them to vote in such agreements thus, they only wait until instructed so. This shows that the Articles of Confederation did not provide how it could be ratified, but indirectly implied it the duty of the legislatures of the various states. This meant that the people had no direct influence over the form of national government being put in place because their representatives were not specifically elected for that purpose.The Constitution provided for conventions in the states whereby delegates are chosen by people for the purpose of considering ratification. Therefore, the Constitution had specifically addressed its ratification in Article VII (Maier, 2010). The provision that ratification by nine states were to effect it meant by passing the state legislature and going to the people for governing consent. In summary, in the Articles of Confederation, consent of power was from the state while in the constitution the power to govern came from the people to the government. Type of National Government Under the Articles of Confederation, the government was more of a constitutional confederacy, whereas the Constitution provided constitutional federal republic (Merrill, 1959). Under both, the government was a constitutional government because it was codified in writing. The government structure between the two, however, differed. An association of States under a common government formed the confederacy. Each member state retained its sovereignty leaving the national government with very little authority over the individual state (Young, 1977). The National government powers tilted towards foreign relations for the benefit of all the states. This meant that the National Government could not coerce individual states to do anything. The constitution provided for a federalism structure (Kermit, 1987). This ensured a more equated power sharing between the National government and the state government. The National government, therefore, had sufficient sovereignty to execute its mandate while ensuring the same for the state government. Representation in the National Government In the Articles of Confederation, indirect popular representation was in effect as the representatives were appointed by an elected state legislature (Wendel, 1981). On the other hand, the Constitution effected direct popular representation for both the states and the citizens. The people, through popular vote, formed the House of Representatives while the states ,through elected legislature, appointed the Senate (Kermit, 1987). The representation according to the constitution was in accordance with the structure of Federalism. Division of Powers in the National Government Articles of Confederation provided one legislative body (unicameral) with all powers of national government which was the Congress Assembly. All decisions and relations were derived from the Congress (Wendel, 1981). Matters of law, settling disputes, foreign relations, including all the others issued from Congress (Merrill, 1959). However, Congress did not have the ability to implement laws, and had limited ability to judge on law or disputes because a dedicated judiciary was not in place. The Congress, however, appointed courts to preside on piracy and High Seas crimes, resolve disputes between States and individuals from different States. The Constitution, however, provided for division of power of the National government into three distinct branches, each with specified duties. The Legislature composed of the Senate and House of Representatives is mandated with making laws (Maier, 2010). The executive was to enforce laws with the President while the Judiciary and inferior courts is to judge using the law. A mechanism was also provided to each of the three branches to view the power on other two and encroachments into other branches powers. Powers of Congress The Articles of Confederation provided specifically enumerated powers to the congress which included regulating foreign commerce. Congress could not, however, regulate interstate commerce (Wendel, 1981). The Constitution powers carried over from the Articles of Confederation included the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce amongst others. Some of the powers remained the same although others differed. Among the powers included in the Constitution but absent in the Articles of Confederation are taxing, regulating interstate and foreign commerce, making of uniform laws on bankruptcy, raising and supporting an Army and Navy and establishment of inferior courts (Kermit, 1987). Congress Assembly lacked all these powers under the Articles of confederation. Revenue Raising The Articles of Confederation provided that National Government should request for funds from the individual states (Wendel, 1981). The Constitution, however, gave the National Government power to tax. A major shortcoming of the Articles of Confederation was a failure of providing for the National Government to raise its own revenues (Young, 1977). Congress assembly requested funds from states for National treasury. This resulted in the states failing to comply as requested. This made the United States lag on paying its debts and meeting its obligations. Under the Constitution, Congress could raise revenue for costs and operations of the National Government, namely, common defense and general welfare of the United States (Maier, 2010). However, some restrictions were imposed regarding revenue raising of the National Government. The provision of raising revenue for National government ensured it did not rely on other entities namely, the states to execute its duties. Enforcement of Federal Laws The Articles of Confederation did not provide for the National government to enforce its laws thus it had to rely on States for this function (Wendel, 1981). Laws, treaties, acts or agreements passed by Congress Assembly were up to states solely to enforce (Merrill, 1959). This resulted in them only enforcing what favored and suited to them. The Constitution on its part, gave the executive branch through the President power to enforce laws (Maier, 2010). This provision enabled speedy execution of laws and execution of the government requirements. Analysis of Drafting the Constitution On May 25, 1787, fifty five delegates of the United States convened in Philadelphia with intent of creating a new and better government. Initially, Virginians Edmund Randolph and James Madison presented a constitutional proposal called the Virginia Plan. The proposal provided for a bicameral (two chambers) legislature (Kermit, 1987). The lower house was to be chosen by the citizens, and the upper house was chosen by the lower house. In addition, a national executive and judiciary were to be selected by the legislature. The plan aimed at creating a strong central government. The debate began with the delegates of the large states supporting the Plan while those from smaller states opposed it. The smaller states felt that the larger states would dominate national legislature for the number of legislative representatives was to be determined by population. Some delegates also had fear that a firm central government would overpower the states restricting their individual liberties. Weeks of debating saw another proposal from William Patterson of New Jersey (Maier, 2010). This was referred to as the New Jersey Plan. This plan modified the Articles of Confederation and proposed a unicameral legislature having equal representation regardless of states’ population, a two-person executive branch and a single body of the judiciary. Smaller states delegates and proponents of weak government were for the New Jersey Plan while bigger states delegates opposed it. The ensuing stalemate was broken by Roger Sherman of Connecticut through the Connecticut Plan. The plan incorporated both previous proposals. Its proposal of a bicameral legislature with a population-based lower chamber and an independent upper chamber with equal representation satisfied both the small state and large state delegates. Other compromises included legalization of the slave trade until 1808 and returning of escaped slaves to their owners. Slavery was assumed to come to an end by itself. During census, slaves were to be enumerated as three-fifths of a person (Kermit, 1987). This resolved the debate on counting slaves between northerners who were against it and southerners who were for equal counting of slaves. Many delegates opposed people electing the president while others supported the election of the executive by the citizens. An Electoral College was formed which called for a body of electors selected by each state’s legislature to vote for a president. The Debate over Ratification between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists Ratification of the constitution also resulted in a major division between federalists and anti-federalists. The Anti-Federalists such as James Hancock feared that the National Government, the Executive branch and Congress held too much power. They also argued that the national government could maintain the army during times of peace (Maier, 2010). Contrary to the Anti-Federalists, the Federalists led by James Madison argued that power separation into three independent branches protected people’s rights as each of the branches represented a different aspect of the people (Hamilton, Madison Jay, 1982). Because of the equality of the branches, none of the groups could control another. They also argued that listing the rights exposed the people as it would likely result in the government violating those not listed. The final compromise for ratification saw the federalists promise drafting of the bill of rights once Congress met. References Hamilton, A. Madison, J. Jay, J. (1982). The Federalist Papers. New York: Bantam Classics. Kermit, H., (1987). The Formation and ratification of the Constitution: Major historical interpretations. New York: Garland Pub. Maier, P. (2010). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. New York: Simon Schuster. Merrill, J. (1959). The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774–178, p. 178–179 Wendel, T. (1981). The Articles of Confederation. National Review. Vol. 33(13) p. 768- 770. Young, R. L. (1977). The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. American Bar Association Journal. Vol. 63(11), p. 1572.