The Confederation Congress was plagued with problems, as the former colonies struggled to form a national identity. The lack of permanent physical location and united national government, led to problems of inaction, following the Revolutionary war. “Congress’s lack of power and frequent inability to act (often due to a lack of quorum or the need for a supermajority for certain decisions) demanded reform” (Wirls, p. 58). The founders agreed on the need for reform, opposing groups argued about the nature. Federalists argued for a strong national government, with few representatives, removed the day to day local political affairs. They desired a group of political elites, free to make decisions based on national interests. In order …show more content…
“The federal constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the state legislatures” (Madison, p. 50). The senate should consist of the best and brightest, an elite group to serve as a check against members of the more populous house as well as the potential tyranny of majority popular sentiment. “The lesson we are to draw from the whole is that where a majority are united by a common sentiment and have and opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure” (Madison, p. 54). The senate would represent large constituencies but their loyalty would remain vested in national goals verses of regional interests. They would be motivated their own morality, judgment, legacy and interest in the health of the nation as a whole. “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion” (Burke, p. …show more content…
“While perhaps not decisive, the widely shared sentiments of an ideal Senate- independent to be an effective check, small to promote deliberation and selected (rather than elected) to enhance both deliberation and the check- pushed the convention toward the compromise” (Wirls, p. 77). Federalists, hoping for a more national composition, pushed for proportional representation within the senate, however the shared desire by both groups for the senate to be small in nature soon leads to the abandonment of proportional representation. “As support for proportional representation in the Senate was eroded by the problem of size and the role of state selection, equal representation emerged as the only viable alternative” (Wirls, p.
At the time, larger states like Virginia were creating an unfair amount of power for themselves that the small states didn’t have. In the new government, Congress was created to make laws, and was made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives would give states a number of Representatives they could have based on their population. This would give fair power deserved to the larger states. The Senate however would be two and only two Senators for each state, no matter how large or small, bringing some equality to Congress.
On June 12, 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a committee, consisting of one delegate from each of the thirteen states, for the purpose of setting up a cohesive Federal Government. Headed by John Dickinson, the committee presented a draft of the Articles of Confederation to Congress a month later. Though the Articles were not officially ratified until five years later, Congress began operating under them in 1777. The delay that occurred during the years from drafting to ratification was partially caused by the opening of a multi-faceted debate that encompassed the issues of representation for citizens, the balance of power within the country, and state sovereignty. Densely-populated states wanted a system of representation based on population, while the more sparsely-inhabited states disagreed. The Federalist Party wanted a small federal government, but common sense demanded a balance in size. Everyone wanted the question of state sovereignty answered. The Articles of Confederation attempted to answer these questions, but instead, only succeeded in creating an ineffectual, self-contradictory government that required reform. This reform came in the form of the Constitution of 1789.
In the early years of the eighteenth Century, the young United States of America were slowly adapting to the union and the way the country was governed. And just like the country, the governmental powers were starting to develop. Since the creation of the Constitution and due to the Connecticut Compromise, there is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Power. But the existence of those powers was not always that naturally. In these crucial times, the Judicial Power had problems controlling the other powers. It was a challenge for the Supreme Court to exercise the powers granted by the new Constitution. Federal Government was not generally appreciated and its formation also caused many disagreements and debates.
The delegates, also known as the Framers of the Constitution, didn't exactly agree on how to create a new system of government, with two sides emerging both with contrary, but comparable motives on how to keep their country running efficiently. First there were the Federalists, who favored a stronger national g...
One argument that the Anti-Federalists had against the forming of a new constitution was that they claimed it would “lead to a new consolidation system of government” and the leaders of Philadelphia intended “such a system and that the consolidated system would in the end destroy republican government and individual liberty as well as the independence of the states.” (Lewis 2) The Federalists feared that the government would have so much power it would be abused. They were constantly speculating about what would happen to the Unit...
In the final copy of the Constitution, many compromises were made between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The main goal of the Federalists’ was to ratify and publish the Constitution; however, the unanimous ratification by all thirteen states needed to publish the Constitution set their progress back, as the Anti-Federalists had many issues with the standing draft of the Constitution. The primary topic of discourse between the two factions was over the addition of the Bill of Rights. Another topic of contention held was the Anti-Federalists’ demands for full and fair representation in the government. Their argument was that the Constitution would give an overwhelming amount of power to the federal government, and leave the state and local governments deprived of power. They feared that the federal government would be too absent in governing to represent the citizen, as a
The establishment of the U.S. Constitution was an action taken in order to supply federal control over the young United States of America without replicating the mistakes and flaws present within the Articles of Confederation. The idea of the Constitution was to better unify the states, something the Articles of Confederation were completely unable to do. Even during the infancy of the Constitution, its creators were divided into two major political parties: the federalists, who supported large and strong federal government, and the Anti-Federalists who supported reserving state’s rights and limiting the grasp of the federal government. Upon the establishment and the passing of the U.S. constitution, these two parties used personal party-based
While the government of the United States owes its existence to the contents and careful thought behind the Constitution, some attention must be given to the contributions of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers towards this same institution. Espousing the virtues of equal representation, these documents also promote the ideals of competent representation for the populace and were instrumental in addressing opposition to the ratification of the Constitution during the fledgling years of the United States. With further reflection, the Federalists, as these essays are called, may in turn owe their existence, in terms of their intellectual underpinnings, to the writings of the philosopher and teacher, Aristotle.
The United States Congress was created by the framers of the Constitution as the most important part of the legislative branch of the national government. The Congress was set up with a bicameral structure composed by the House of Representatives or Lower Chamber and the Senate or Upper Chamber. According to “Origins and Development” and “History of the House”, two descriptions of the history of the Congress, both chambers assembled for the very first time in New York in 1789 and then moved to Philadelphia in 1790 where they stayed for 10 years. In 1800 the Congress moved to Washington, DC; however, it was not until 1857 and 1859 that the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively moved to their current meeting locations in the Capitol after its restoration due to the British invasion of 1814 that burned the building. With more than two centuries legislating, the Congress has acquired great expertise in governing the country and meeting the Constitution’s mandates. Yet, in order to accomplish all its tasks the Congress has a very well-defined structure and very specific ways to proceed. Indeed, in order to undertake the most important of its mandates, “to enact law”, the Congress has a rigorous procedure that is combined with some of the different structural elements of Congress which indicate the direction that bills must follow once introduced. One of the most important of such elements is the congressional committee structure.
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
According to the Federalists in the early stages of the American republic, a strong central government was necessary to provide uniform supervision to the states thus aiding in the preservation of the Union. This necessity for a more organized central government was a result of the ineffectiveness of the Article of Confederation’s government that was without a unifying government body. One component of this philosophy was the creation of an executive and other federal branche...
In spite of the prominence of the states in everyday life, the most demanding public policy questions former to the American Civil War involved discussions over the possibility of national power with most Americans believing it should remain partial. Yet federalism was still the center of political arguments. The Constitution did not report if states did nor did not reserve any remaining sovereignty in the powers given to the national government. The fact that the states were much more capable in accomplishing governmental purposes adequately t...