After gaining independence, it became necessary for the United States to have an internal constitution that would be used as the supreme law in the country. The Articles of Confederation that was ratified in 1781 became the first law. The disagreement that emanated from different schools of thought regarding the Articles led to the conception of the Constitution which became operation on 21 st June 1788. The two documents have various similarities including being developed by the same people. However, the interest of that the citizens had made the articles porous and they could not be relied upon to mold a solid country, and this led to the development of the Constitution.
Q1
The Articles of Confederation had various weaknesses. First, the regulations gave supreme power to the states. This meant that the federal government could not enact laws to suppress the dictates of the states. For instance, there was no provision for the formation of the executive arm of the federal government. The executive branch was only introduced after the adoption of the Constitution whereby the president would be elected by the Electoral College (Smith, 1997). Another example was the inability of the federal government to control trade and commerce. The Articles placed the responsibility under the states. In the Constitution, the Congress was given the mandate to establish laws to control both local and international trade.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This was criticized since it led to the development of a collection of laws that did not have a common baseline. It is such criticism that brought the founding fathers including James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, William Pierce, and George Washington together to contemplate the way forward. Such gaping holes in the Articles led to the resolution that they could not build on the existing law. There was a need to develop a new set of rules which would act as federal constitution.
Another glaring weakness of the Articles of Confederation lay in the lack of separation of powers. Under the law, the government consisted of only one house, the Legislature. This failed to provide checks and balances, and a significant number of the people felt that the house could be misused to pass partisan regulations (Smith, 1997). The 13 states that had ratified the constitution also made the requirement to pass bills challenging for the legislators. For a bill to be approved, it had to be passed by 9 out of the 13 states. Under the Constitution, the introduction of the bills became possible since the law only requires a suggestion by the resident which is then revised and debated by the Legislative branch.
Another major weakness of the Articles of Confederation was in the regulation of the Western Lands. The land between the Appalachian and the Mississippi River was largely unexplored. The small states feared that the large states would take advantage when the lands were sold to benefit from them. On the other hand, the states that bordered the land felt that they were rightful shareholders of the land. The quick drafting of the Articles left this case unresolved (Smith, 1997). It was solved by the Constitution which required the states to surrender the land to the federal government. The move was bipartisan, and it prevented a conflict between the states. Although some took as many as 20 years to adopt the policy, they eventually gave up their lands.
Q3
The American Constitution was a product of compromises between the states. Among them was the Great Compromise of 1987 which was proposed by Roger Sherman together with a proportional representation from the lower house. There was a need for the small states and the large states to come into an agreement regarding representation (Nelson, 2011). The small states argued that they had an equal status and they were required to an equal number of representatives. The large states, however, believed that they had more interest and population and they were supposed more than one representative. The debate was imperative particularly when it came to the rights of the members of the bicameral parliament. After weeks of discussing, a compromise was reached upon whereby the states were required to an equal number of legislatures in the upper house and a proportional in the lower house.
The constitution also culminated through the trade compromise. The constitutional convention was held during the period when the Northern and Southern regions engaged in different forms of production (Nelson, 2011). The North was highly industrialized the market was dominated by a variety of finished goods. On the other hand, the South imported most of its finished products from Britain. The farmers in the South exported raw materials since most of the citizens were farmers. Their large tracts of land made it possible for them to engage in large-scale production (Faber, 2015). A compromise was reached between the states whereby the government was mandated to increase the tariff on imported finished products (Nelson, 2011). This would provide the market for the products manufactured in the Northern states. The North was also required to obtain most of its raw material from the Southern states. The compromise appeared favorable, and it was passed by a two-thirds majority in the senate.
The slave compromise was also a stalemate between the states in the South and those in the North. The Northerners did not have much for the slaves to do. The few citizens who had procured the slaves engaged them in household chores. Therefore, the states did not have any objection to the abolishment of slavery. On the other hand, the Southerners require slaves to work in their large farms. They argued that abolishing slave trade would have detrimental effects on their production. For this reason, the two regions agreed to enter into compromise (Nelson, 2011). The Northern states were required to deport runaway slaves back to the Southern states. On the other hand, the Southern states agreed to wait until 1808 when the Congress would abolish the slavery. They were, however, allowed to exploit the labor offered by the slaves until the time when the Congress would pass the law. On 1 st January 1808, President Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into legislation and slavery was abolished.
The election of the president was not provided for in the Articles of Confederation. The delegates discussing the Constitution resolved that it was necessary to have an executive headed by the President. However, the process of electing the head of the executive was a stalemate that required the representatives to reach a compromise. Some of the delegates believed that the president was supposed to be elected by a popular vote. However, others feared that the electorate would not be well informed to make such a critical decision. There were alternatives such as going through the senate to elect the president. At the end of the discussion, the members reached a compromise to form an electoral college for the election of the chairperson. The college was supposed to be composed of electorates proportionately elected from the population (Nelson, 2011).
Q3
During the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, the Federalists and Anti-federalists had divergent views on how the law was to be drafted. The Federalists were more of nationalists, and they sought to strengthen the national government rather than having the power shift to the states. Conversely, the Antifederalist supported the form of governance that was outlined in the Articles of Confederation whereby the power rested with the states (Bradford, 1994). The Antifederalists, however, could not manage their mobilization efficiently, and this resulted in a bad support in the thirteen states. However, they were successful in forcing the Congress which was formed under the new constitution to establish a bill of rights to uphold the rights that they believed the government was out to sabotage. Hamilton and Madison, who were on the leading front of the federalists argued that the new constitution did not require a bill of rights since it would create a parchment barrier which would limit the people’s liberties instead of protecting them. However, the Bill of Rights became an imperative reference point for both the federal and state government since it formed the core of the liberties that individuals enjoyed.
Unlike the Federalists who were organized in support of the new constitution, the Antifederalists believed had different factions within them. Some of them opposed the Constitution on the basis that it could threaten the sovereignty of the states. Others argued that the constitution would introduce the despotism of Great Britain(Bradford, 1994). Another faction believed that the government would interfere with their liberties. As a result of these varied opinions, they could not mobilize enough states to oppose the constitution.
Conclusively, the Constitution of the United States was a result of compromises between the states which were torn between Federalism and Antifederalism. The Articles of Confederation did not satisfy the needs of the 13 states since some of the issues such the question slavery, and the western land was not addressed. The compromise was imperative and sustainable because since then there has not been a complete overhaul of the constitution and it has remained the supreme law of the land, with the Federal government being stronger than the state authorities are.
References
Bradford, M. E. (1994). A better guide than reason: Federalists and anti-federalists . Transaction Publishers.
Faber, M. J. (2015). The Federal Union Paradigm of 1788: Three Anti-Federalists Who Changed Their Minds. American Political Thought , 4 (4), 527-556.
Nelson, W. E. (2011). Reason and Compromise in the Establishment of the Federal Constitution, 1787-1801. The William and Mary Quarterly: A Magazine of Early American History and Culture , 458-484.
Smith, D. G. (1997). An Analysis of Two Federal Structures: The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. San Diego L. Rev. , 34 , 249.
