Primary purpose of writing articles of confederation versus constitution essay
One of the requirements for almost all higher institutions is to write an essay – a small piece with a short description of the chosen or given a theme. The essay demonstrates your logic skills to convey your thoughts in writing, which is an important fact for successful university studies. Thus, a correctly written verse essay is practically a key factor for a positive mark.
That’s why when you’re faced with the assignment of writing about the similarities and differences between articles of confederation vs. constitution essay, the next information will be very useful for you.
What is the AOC, its main principles?
Constitutions in every state of the USA were drafted and adopted right after the proclamation of independence (during 1775-1778). But the unresolved issue remained the state unit of the CELA. Its importance has intensified because there still was a danger of defeat in the war with England. That’s why the Second Continental Congress adopted the first Constitution – “Articles of Confederation and the Eternal Union” in November 1777, whose draft was passed to the approval of all states. Finally, this document came into force on March 1, 1781.
The articles of the confederation fixed the revolutionary gains of the people and determined the republican form of the state system of the former colonies in North America, proclaiming the formation of a confederation and an eternal union of the United States. According to the Articles of Confederation, the states retained their sovereignty of internal and external affairs. To manage common affairs (declaring war and peace, signing treaties, setting up armed forces, etc.), it was planned to convene a unicameral congress annually from delegations that elected state legislatures.
Each state had the right to send from two to seven delegates, but only one had to vote. Decisions were made by a qualified majority (not less than nine votes). Congress didn’t have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the states. So, the Congress was not representative, but rather a diplomatic body. Between sessions of the Congress, its functions were entrusted to the State Committee, which was formed from representatives from each state. However, the Committee, compared to the Congress, had limited federal rights.
The main reasons of the Articles of Confederation failed
The Confederate state was not centralized enough, with the absent vertical executive. The prerogatives of the Congress practically didn’t go beyond advisory functions. According to the figurative statement of J. Washington, the articles of the Confederacy were “a rope of sand.” He was one of the first politicians of that time who saw the danger of such an amorphous state education. In a special appeal to the Congress and the country, he demanded a revision of the content of the document, anticipating the rampant anarchy and the collapse of the Confederacy.
The reason for reviewing the Articles was the question of trade, customs, and financial policies. The main goal of the Confederative Union was to resolve foreign policy tasks. When this goal was achieved, and England signed the Versailles treatise on the granting of colonies of independence, the confederative union lost its strength.
The contradictions between the southern and northern states became heightened. The northern states advocated the strengthening of the central government, the establishment of a single currency, the creation of a joint bank, the unification of public debt of individual states into a common national external debt. Southern states sought to maintain independence from the central government and advocated broad autonomy. Their debts were smaller, and therefore they didn’t want a nationwide debt consolidation.
The proclaimed union of states was weak, because:
- There was no overall budget of the union;
- The questions of ratification and push weren’t solved;
- Congress didn’t have the right to enter into trade agreements with other states, introduce customs tariffs, and impose other taxes for the needs of the union;
- There was no mechanism for implementing the decisions of the Congress;
- Left wing and most farmers in Congress believed that the centerline is incompatible with government.
The United States Constitution as the world’s longest surviving written charter of government
The Constitution replaced the articles of confederation in 1787. The formation of the government of a young state began, with its first president, J. Washington. Based on the principle of federalism, the constitution has a lot of strengths written in it. “Founding Fathers” understood federalism differently. One of the points of view was defended by A. Hamilton. He believed that the national government is created by the people, and laws and treaties are adopted and concluded according to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the country.
Since the development of the national economy and the maintenance of favorable international relations are the most important for the country, Hamilton believed that the national government is the supreme and leading force in political relations, and his powers should be interpreted quite freely. This was the so-called “broad interpretation” of the constitution.
Another point of view was defended by T. Jefferson, who didn’t present at the constitutional convention, as he was in the capacity of an envoy in France. His position was that the federal government is the product of an interstate agreement. And although the “people,” in fact, act as the bearer of power, the main threat to its rights and freedoms comes from the federal government. Thus, Jefferson believed that the powers of the federal government should be interpreted narrowly and severely limited.
The American Constitution was the first in the world history written constitution, embodied in the practice of state life, the first constitution in the formal sense of the word. It represents a unique document that describes that a change to its text should be a special procedure that has complicated its review. For example, during voting on a draft constitutional amendment, a qualified majority of both chambers of parliament was required.