Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing articles of confederation and the us constitution defining the union
Compare and contrast articles of confederation and us constitution
Role of the bill of rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The United States Constitution was written up by delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, when many of the country 's leaders realized that the Articles of Confederation, the set of laws that the country had been following up until that point, were creating more problems than solutions. Once it was written, and approved and signed by delegates in 1787, it was sent to the 13 states for ratification. But many of the states saw flaws in the document, and refused to agree to it until changes were made. Both the writers of the Constitution and it 's critics were invaluable to the shaping of the final document. A few of the major flaws pointed out by critics were the lack of a Bill of Rights, the unlikelihood of one government ruling over such a widespread nation while remaining democratic, and doubt that such varied people would be able to exist under the same government without constant turmoil. The supporters of The consensus was that a single government with that much power would prove to be too strong of a temptation to power-hungry men, and that power could be easily taken by forces that did not necessarily have the nation 's best interests in mind. Many people felt that government officials could behave in anyway they wished, without consequences. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, objections were made by many delegates, saying that it was impossible for a single government to rule over such an extensive nation without corruption, and that the checks and balances system was not strong enough, leaving many high-up officials with little to lose if they behaved dishonorably. Supporters of the Constitution countered these objections by emphasizing the three-house checks and balances system and the limit of the presidency to 2 4-year terms, plus the allowance for
From five states arose delegates who would soon propose an idea that would impact the United States greatly. The idea was to hold a meeting in Philadelphia called the Constitutional Convention in 1787 meant to discuss the improvements for the Articles of Confederation and would later be called the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution was greatly influenced by Ancient Rome, the Enlightenment, and Colonial Grievances.
On September 28, 1787 Confederation Congress sent out the draft of the Constitution. This was the first time in history for the people to debate, discuss, and decide with a vote for how they wanted to be governed. There were two groups that debated the thought of the Constitution. They were called Federalists and anti-Federalists.
James Madison once said,” All men having power ought to be distrusted.” Through these words, Madison made the statement that not all government officials use their authority for good; some abuse that power and use it to gain more for themselves rather than vesting it within the people. This issue may lead to tyranny. Tyranny is when all powers belong to only one person or group. In May of 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia to draft a better constitution. One of the topics that concerned many was how the constitution would guard against tyranny. Madison and the other delegates wanted a Constitution that would be strong enough to unite the states and the people together without letting there be one person or group gain too much power. They achieved this in several ways. Today, the U.S. Constitution guards against tyranny by including a separation of powers, federalism, and the fair representation of states.
When the new Constitution was drafted, the ratification, the official approval by the people of the United States, sparked a national debate. People were shocked by the radical changes it proposed; they expected the convention to merely amend the Articles of Confederation. They were afraid of regressing back into a state under tyranny, a form of rule where a single or small group reigns with vast or absolute power. Americans had just fought for their freedom from the tyrannical rule of the king of England. All their efforts and revolutionary ideas would have gone to waste.
All of the framer of the U.S. Constitution had one thing in common, they all felt that the government didn't have enough power. At the same time they didn't want to give the government to much power. They all knew if there was power to be held someone was going to hold it and over use it The framers didn't want to create a system like Britain or England.
This task was easier said than done. The fear of creating a government with too much power was a fear that was very much alive throughout the states. Tyranny was a common factor in developing governments, the delegates were seeking to avoid this error. Two ground rules were put into place for the Convention. The first was that any and all deliberations were to remain secretive. The second was that no topic or decisions would be considered closed and could therefore be up for debate and revision at any time. Once these rules were agreed upon, business started. The two contenders were the Virginia Plan, which had the larger states rooting, and the New Jersey Plan, claiming the votes of the smaller states. Under the Virginia Plan, legislature would be two houses and would be represented based on population. Under the New Jersey Plan, legislature would be one house and each state would have equal representation regardless of population. An agreement could not be reached between these two plans, instead a compromise was made. The Great Compromise met each side with an upper and lower house. The upper house was the Senate and would provide equal representation that was elected by the lower house. The lower house was the House of Representatives and would be dispersed based on population of the states. This compromise satisfied the small and large states, giving a
The Federalist wanted to ratify the Constitution while the Antifederalist despised the idea entirely. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay eventually compiled 85 essays as the Federalist Papers. These supporters of the Constitution believed that the checks and balances system (a system in which the different parts of an organization (such as a government) have powers that affect and control the other parts so that no part can become too powerful )would allow a strong central government to preserve states' rights. They felt that the Articles of Confederation was too weak and that they were in need for a change. The Articles of Confederation had “errors” that needed to be corrected argued the Federalist. Ratifying the Constitution lead to an improved more advanced country.
The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
However, critics of Jackson and democracy called him “King Andrew I” because of his apparent abuse of presidential power [vetoing]. These critics believed he favored the majority so much that it violated the U.S. constitution, and they stated he was straying too far away from the plan originally set for the United States. Because of the extreme shift of power to the majority, the limiting of rights of the few [merchants, industrialists] and the abuse of power under Jackson’s democracy, the foundational documents set in the constitution was violated, and the work of the preceding presidents were all but lost. During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms.
The Constitution that was created had a strong central government and weaker state governments. Under the Constitution, Congress was given the power to levy taxes, regulate trade between the states, raise an army, control interstate commerce, and more. A three-branch government was established in which a judicial branch handled disputes in a federal court system, a President headed an executive branch, and a legislative branch. Conversely, the anti-federalists believed in weak central and strong state governments, as the way it was in The Articles of Confederation and believed in strict adherence to the writings of the constitution.
Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the US Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic. Since then, the design has often been imitated, but important principles have often been ignored in those imitations, with the result that their governments fall short of being true republics or truly constitutional. The Framers of the Constitution tried very hard to design a system that would not allow any one person or group within the government to gain too much power. Personally, I think they succeeded. In order to guard against what one of the Founding Fathers called an "excess of democracy," the Constitution was built with many ways to limit the government's power. Among these methods were separating the three branches, splitting the legislature so laws are carefully considered, and requiring members of Congress to meet certain criteria to qualify for office. The Founders did leave a few problems along with their system.
The constitution is the cornerstone to how the U.S. operates legally, unfortunately many times the government attempts to find loopholes and skirt around these pillars of America. An easy example is the 4th amendment, “protection from unreasonable searches and seizures”.
The constitution created as a base for the entire United States of America Written by the founding fathers in 1787. The founding fathers being a group of wealthy old white guys. Not necessarily an unbiased representation of the population back then let alone now. A biased writer creates biased works. A biased constitution can be considered flawed. Flaws stemming from the writers, the rights unwritten, and the changing times. To best understand the origin of where some flaws begin one must look at the original writer's.
The first step of the Constitution was undemocratic. No popular vote was taken either directly or indirectly on the proposition to approve a convention (Beard 14). The group of men who wanted the convention was skillful in getting it approved in that their proposal of it was a surprise. This gave the Federalists an upper hand. Their opponents, the Anti-Federalists, could not refuse to a discussion of possible, and perhaps necessary, reforms. By refusing, they could lose the support of the public very easily (Roche 18).