¶ … achievement of independence left the American statesmen in a serious institutional dilemma. The new state founded, what was to be its form of organization on the other hand, if decided on the federal organization, the statesmen obviously needed to decide both on the states' representation in the institutions, but also on what these institutions would be. James Madison's notes from May 30 are eloquent in describing the debates around these issues. As it is suggested in the beginning of the note, there were generally three issues that needed to be addressed at Confederate level and upon deciding on the form of organization. These were "common defense, security of liberty & general welfare"

. On a scale describing the level of integration, one had to decide upon establishing a national government or leaving things at an inferior level of integration and achieving the three issues based on a common treaty between the states, somewhat similar to a treaty of mutual assistance.

We should analyze both solutions and compare the conclusions with the ideas that were noted by Madison. A common treaty between the states would have born much resemblance to the assistance NATO provides nowadays for its members. Indeed, according to Article 5 from the Treaty founding the North Atlantic Organization, an attack on one country is considered an attack on all the country in the organization, establishing thus the legal grounds for a common defense.

Similarly, a defense treaty between the member states in the Confederation would have probably stipulated the same common defense in case of attack. As Randolph suggested,...

I would complete this statement by pointing out that it would not necessarily be insufficient, but it would have certainly not created the necessary coagulating basis on which the new state could function. In this sense, we can point out that the signatory parts of a treaty can pull out at any moment they consider fit. As such, we may have been in a situation that only some of the signatory states would have agreed, at one time or another, to support the common defense policy.
The discussions around how to approach common policies of the new founded state led on naturally to references of the supreme institutions that would function in the new state: "a national Government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary"

. In my opinion, such a statement is full of different consequences.

First of all, as Charles Pinkney pointed out, the notions of national and supreme would simply wipe out the concept of State Governments and would have transferred all three of these powers to a national level. In this case, we would have been exactly in the opposite situation to the one previously discussed: instead of a loose federation, with a common defense policy established through a treaty among the States, a national authority would have been created, integrating at a national level the three main functions, executive, legislative and judicial. As Gov. Morris pointed out, federalism refers to "a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties," while the…