Emerging American Republic

Constitution The American Experiment The American experiment: The Articles of Confederation vs. The Constitution When the Founding Fathers initially designed a governing structure for the emerging American nation, they wished to err on the side of conservatism, in terms of granting power to the federal authority. After all, the American Revolution had been founded upon a principle of autonomy from a strong central authority in the form of the British king.

However, the Articles of Confederation which emerged to govern was a "weak" and "anemic" structure ill-suited to a modern nation which had to hold its own with European powers such as Great Britain itself (Kennedy, Cohen & Piehl 2012:120) The Articles of Confederation provided for a loose confederation or "firm league of friendship.' Thirteen independent states were thus linked together for joint action in dealing with common problems, such as foreign affairs" (Kennedy, Cohen & Piehl 2012: 120).

In the Articles of Confederation, although there was a central authority "all bills dealing with subjects of importance required the support of nine [of thirteen] states; any amendment of the Articles themselves required unanimous ratification" (Kennedy, Cohen & Piehl 2012: 120). The states could independently regulate commerce, including tariffs, which led to conflicting policy between them. The taxes paid to the federal government were voluntary by the states. The Articles did allow the federal government to establish treaties and did establish a postal service (Kennedy, Cohen & Piehl 2012: 120).

But the lack of financial authority and central policy made waging war or negotiation with foreign powers almost impossible. The resultant Constitution which superseded the Articles invested far more power in the federal branch of government and demanded more concessions of power from the states to be part of the new, emerging republic. The executive power was given additional strength in particular. "The president was to have broad authority to appoint officials and judges, veto legislation, and wage war as commander in chief of the military.

But Congress retained the crucial right to declare war -- a division of responsibilities that has been an invitation to conflict between president and Congress ever since" (Kennedy, Cohen & Piehl 2012: 125). There was a continual balance in the document between the rights of the states and the rights of the government as a whole, such as "electing the president indirectly by the Electoral College, rather than by direct means (see Art. II, Sec. I, para. 2).

While the large states would have the advantage in the first round of popular voting, the small states would gain a larger voice if no candidate got a majority of electoral votes and the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, where each state would have, for this purpose, just one vote (see Art. II, Sec. I, para. 2)" (Kennedy, Cohen & Piehl 2012: 125).

The House of Representatives was chosen by direct election while the Senate was chosen by the state legislatures, once again further balancing the direct rights of the people with the need for more reasoned elected officials to make decisions. In the new Constitution, the central government was given the power to levy taxes in a non-voluntary fashion. Rather than unanimity of nine states, to pass a law required a "simple majority vote in Congress, subject to presidential veto," thus making decisive decisions far easier to execute (Kennedy, Cohen & Piehl.