Comparing and Contrasting the Article of Confederation and the Constitution

The Constitution and the Article of Confederation in Comparison

The article was a contract that was made to establish the national government’s operating principles. (Schwartz, 2003)

Notably, the Articles came under heavy critique shortly after they were ratified because of issues that were discovered with the document.

For instance, the material failed to meet the requirements of the country as a whole because it made the national government dependent on the states or at their mercy.

In actuality, it gave state administrations total authority.

Therefore, there was a unanimous decision by the delegates at the Convention in 1787 to draft an entire constitution rather than revising the Articles.

Differences in Governance

Pointedly, the Articles had a governance that was unicameral in a Congress form while the Constitution introduced a bicameral system that divides the Congress into the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Besides, the Articles provided a single vote per state without considering the size of the same while the Constitution gives a vote to every senator or representative.

In contrary to the Article which did not provide for the executive branch, the Constitution facilitates the establishment of an executive branch of the government where the president is chosen by the Electoral College (Kaminski & Benton, 2004).

The Articles had provided that all the law should be enforced by the courts of the state while the Constitution brought in a federal court system which was tasked with the dispute resolution between the citizens and also the states.

Therefore, the disputes that arose between the states were solved by the Supreme Court rather than the Congress that had served a similar power in the reign of the Articles.

Approval Process

Notably, the national government had to receive approval from nine states of the thirteen to pass a new law in the Articles; however, the Constitution provides that a new law can be passed when approved by half the number of the nominees in total (Schwartz, 2003).

In the Articles, unanimous approval was needed from all the states to carry on with any amendment.

On the flip side, the Constitution provides that there can be amendments in case of approval by two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and three-quarter of the state legislatures.

Power and Authority

The states were allowed to have armies in the error of the Articles of Confederation while the national government was dependent on the states if the need arose for building an army.

Contrarily, the federal government was given the right by the United States Constitution to raise an army that would help in dealing with any arising conflict situation.

Further, the Articles barred any interferences on the national government part in trade and commerce.

Contrariwise, the Constitution provided the federal government with the right of regulating trade and commerce at both the inter-state and international levels.

Taxation System

Markedly, the Articles prohibited the national government from levying any taxes on the citizens but to be dependent on the states (Salvucci, Kaminski & Leffler, 2005).

However, the Constitution permitted both federal and state government to levy and collect taxes from the citizens.

Canada which was under the rule of the British received an opportunity of joining the Union as a sovereign state in the Articles while the Constitution did not give any terms for the same.

Therefore, the Article was weak in the sense that the national government could not levy taxes, the government could not enforce any law, the Congress lacked strong leadership, oppressive taxation by the state government with the excuse of supporting the national government with the same, and it allowed the state governments to own armies.

Representation and Compromise

Importantly, representation remained a troubling issue in the drafting of the Constitution with the smaller states like the Delaware and New Jersey holding to the stance that they would be quickly outnumbered by the large states as provided in the Virginia plan.

The Virginia plan provided that there should be a bicameral legislature with a stable central government and the members of the two chambers were to be selected by either the amount of taxes contributed by the states or their population.

In the broad division of argument in the Convention, there was a narrowly approved suggestion of compromise from the Connecticut that the selection of the representatives in each of the houses that were in the proposed bicameral legislature was through different means (Kaminski & Benton, 2004).

The Upper House would have two representatives from each state regardless of the size while the Lower House would consist of a different number of representatives that depended on the population of the state.

The mixed solution balanced the sovereignty of the state and that of famous tied to the actual population, hence forming the constitution through the Connecticut Compromise.

The compromise was a real reflection of victory to the small states, but in comparison to the Articles of the Confederation, it was worthy of both the little and the large states.

Federalists vs Anti-federalists

Anti-federalists were the strong opposers of the development of a federal government.

On the other hand, the Federalists were for the strong federal government which later became.

The opposers argued that the central government was given too much power by the Constitution while the states were deprived of powers (Hunt & Scott, 2008).

Therefore because of the nature of the government, they felt that it would not represent the average citizen.

They feared that the national government would not be able to respond to the people’s concerns as the nation would be vast.

On the other hand, the Federalists pushed for the ratification of the same including John, a famous politician, who endorsed and presented nine future amendments.

However, Hamilton argued against the inclusion of the bill of rights.

Inclusion of the Bill of Rights

Also, the anti-federalists worried about the exclusion of the bill of rights in the Constitution.

Therefore, for the federalists to persuade the former into supporting the Constitution, they promised to add the bill of rights which include the first ten amendments to the Constitution and were added in 1789 (Salvucci, Kaminski & Leffler, 2005).

The Bill of Rights provides for several freedoms including that of speech, religion, freedom to press, gathering or assembly, a petition by the people, bearing of arms, protection against illegal search and the other liberties of both individuals and the power of the people.

The ratification was reached at through the Massachusetts compromise that was negotiated and agreed on both the teams supporting the Constitution’s ratification under a condition that there would also be the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

This integration successfully helped in the provision of protection to the antifederalists who felt unsafe under the Constitution that lacked Bill of Right and would not control the federal government’s actions against the citizens.

References

Hunt, G., & Scott, J. (2008). The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Which Framed the Constitution of the United States of America. The Virginia Law Register, 6(8), 639. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1106309

Kaminski, J., & Benton, W. (2004). 1787: Drafting the U.S. Constitution. Journal Of The Early Republic, 7(1), 79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3123430

Salvucci, L., Kaminski, J., & Leffler, R. (2005). Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate Over the Ratification of the Constitution: Constitutional Heritage Series. The Journal Of Southern History, 57(2), 315. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2210428

Schwartz, B. (2003). From Confederation to Nation: The American Constitution, 1835-1877. Stanford Law Review, 26(2), 486. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1227799