America went through a lot of changes immediately after attaining independence in 1776. To create a unified country that could address the needs of all Americans, the founding fathers came up with the articles of Confederation (the Articles). However, it was later realized that the Articles had some significant weaknesses that were preventing it from unifying the country. Consequently, the Articles of Confederation was replaced with the new constitution of 1787 that could unite the country through a strong central government ( Maggs, 2017) . Although there were some similarities between the Articles and the new constitution, the two legal documents had many differences, and the framing and ratification of the latter elicited a controversial debate.
The primary objective of both the Articles and the new constitution was to create a united America. They were formulated to ensure that Americans remained united after independence, even though they were facing some challenges ( Maggs, 2017) . At the same time, it was the legal requirement for all states to obey the two documents for the country to remain united. The articles and the new constitution also ensured that the national government has the sole responsibility of engaging in foreign issues and not states. Besides, both the documents set the term limit for various offices in the government. Hence, there were some similarities between the Articles and the new constitution.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Nevertheless, there were numerous differences between the two legal documents. First, while the Articles contained a unicameral government, the new constitution envisaged a bicameral government by forming the Congress and the Senate. Secondly, the two documents differed regarding the judicial system. The Articles established the Maritime judiciary created the federal judiciary, including as well as the Supreme Court ( Maggs, 2017) . Thirdly, under the Articles, the Congress was the adjudicator of conflicts whereas in the new constitution the courts and the Supreme Court solved conflicts that emerged in the society. Also, the Articles had no executive while the constitution created that executive branch that was led by the president.
At the same time, the Articles and the new constitution had strengths and weaknesses. The major strength of the Articles was its ability to uphold and maintain the independence of states that could help in uniting the country. The second, secondly, the Articles spelled the function of the central government, which was known as the Congress ( Maggs, 2017) . However, the Articles did not give the Congress the mandate of implementing the laws it formulated, which was regarded as a major weakness. On the contrary, the new constitution empowered the Congress to formulate and execute laws. Also, unlike the Constitution that gave the Congress the sole mandate of collecting taxes, the Articles created a weak taxation system, and the country could not collect enough revenue ( Maggs, 2017) . Consequently, this weakness the article led to a Continental paper currency as the Congress was forced to print more money that resulted in high inflation in the early 1870s. The major weakness of the constitution was its failure to embrace equality because the rights of slaves and women were not considered.
Drafting the new constitution faced some challenges because states and leaders could not agree on some of the critical issues. The major issue that emerged during the drafting of the constitution was the legislative system to be adopted by the country. One hand, some states supported the New Jersey plan that advocated for the equal representation of states in the legislature ( Hulsebosch, 2017) . On the other hand, other states embrace the Virginia Plan that required representation to be based on the state population. However, the great compromised was reached when the rival states adopted the Rodgers Sherman’s Plan that recommended the population to representation ratio in the parliament. The Great Compromise paved the way for the ratification of the constitutions.
However, like the drafting of the new constitution, its ratification was also characterized by a controversial debate between federalists and anti-federalists. Federalists like George Washington and Alexander Hamilton advocated for a strong central government, and they used many tactics to persuade the contrary that their position was correct and should be adopted in the constitution ( Vile, 2006) . For instance, Hamilton published the first federalist paper to persuade Americans to embrace a new form of governance system with a strong national government ( Hulsebosch, 2017) . On the contrary, the anti-federalists were opposed to a strong national government as they preferred powerful states. They strongly campaigned against a powerful central government. Federalists and anti-federalists reached a compromise after they both embraced the recommendatory amendment.
Besides, federalists and anti-federalists had some differences on the Bill of Rights even they agreed that it should be part of the constitution. According to the federalists, Bill of Rights was necessary because it could help in limiting the powers of the central government ( Vile, 2006) . Conversely, anti-federalists maintained that Bill of Rights was required to safeguard human liberty. The Bill of Rights debate showed that both parties could agree on some issues. Besides, the Bill of Rights enhanced the balance between the national and states' interests because it limited the powers of the central government. It ensured that the national government did not have excessive power over states and individuals.
Therefore, American has through a long journey in developing the constitutional that now acts as a legal framework for the country. The new constitution was ratified after a contentious debate between federalists and anti-federalists. Nonetheless, the debate was healthy because it ensured the country ended up with an effective constitution. An effective constitution is important because it helps in guiding the country.
References
Hulsebosch, D. J. (2017). Been seen like a State: How Americans (and Britons) Built the Constitutional Infrastructure of a Developing Nation. Williams & Mary Law Review , 59(4) , 1239-1319.
Maggs, G. E. (2017). A Concise Guide to the Articles of Confederation as a Source for Determining the Original Meaning of the Constitution. George Washington Law Review 85(3) , 397-450.
Vile, J. R. (2006). The Critical Role of Committees at the US Constitutional Convention of 1787. The American Journal of Legal History , 48 (2), 147-176.
