The US Constitution and its historical development

¶ … Articles of Confederation vs. The Constitution: A Cultural and Legal Comparison

The Articles of Confederation, drafted as the first framework for the United States of America, was very different from the Constitution in many ways. It was necessary to change the articles in order to have a more perfect union of states under the federal government. The Articles of Confederation were much less thorough in their design and gave the states the majority of the power to oversee the government and other critical functions of the new republic. Initially there was some resistance to the Constitution because it required states to relinquish their individual powers granted under the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Federal government's power (Jensen 136). Those who were firm believers in states' rights were against the adoption of the Constitution, but were eventually swayed by any number of factors including Madison's Federalist Papers and the promise of a stronger union under the Constitution.

There were many weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation that are not found in the Constitution. First of all, the Articles of Confederation contained no separation of governmental powers (Smith 249). In other words the different branches of government did not exist under the articles, and the checks and balances that the separation provides would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to maintain. Secondly, the Articles of Confederation created a very weak central or Federal government (Smith 249). All the power, according to these articles, rested with the individual states. This could have led to multiple successions or civil wars since the states were allowed to override the Federal government on most issues. As if the Articles of Confederation were not weak enough, they also did not provide congress or the Federal government with the power to tax the citizens of America. Without the power of Federal taxation, the financial resources of the new country would have certainly been inadequate leaving America vulnerable to economic collapse from within.

The Articles of Confederation had several other weaknesses as well. In order to amend the articles, a unanimous approval was required from the states (Jensen 41). This seemed to leave the Federal government in a precarious position of likely not being able to change the articles unless every state agreed to the change. This is another example of how the Articles of Confederation put the states' power first. Besides the unanimous support required for changing the articles, the Articles of Confederation required that 9 of the 13 states approve of a law before it could be passed (Jensen 43). Since many of the states were built around different industries and had different priorities, this would prove to further slow down any progress or change that needed to occur to the Articles of Confederation.

Another key flaw in the Articles of Confederation was the fact that congress had no power to regulate commerce, interstate or otherwise (Smith 249). This would prove to cause competition between the states for power, economic and environmental resources, and political positioning. The interstate commerce law and the associated legislation did not exist under the articles. The Articles of Confederation were far less robust in their structure, giving states the majority of the unchecked power, and not allowing the Federal government the ability to oversee and tax the population in order to develop a balanced and fair economy. The articles did not even allow the Federal government the ability to raise an army, putting that responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the states themselves as well. The articles were certainly a step in the right direction, but they did not represent the best possible scenario for the young United States, and the Founding Fathers were more than capable of creating a far superior governmental framework in the Constitution.