Comparing the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution

Question

The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution reflect two very different approaches to governance. The Articles emphasized state sovereignty, creating a weak national government that could not impose taxes, regulate commerce, or enforce laws. In contrast, the Constitution established a balance of power between the states and the federal government, granting the latter significant authority to address national issues.
Representation was another key difference. Under the Articles, each state had one vote in Congress, regardless of size or population. The Constitution introduced a bicameral legislature, with the Senate ensuring equal representation for states and the House of Representatives providing proportional representation. This system aimed to balance the interests of large and small states.
The Constitution also introduced an executive branch, led by the president, to enforce laws and provide national leadership. A judicial branch was created to interpret laws and resolve disputes, ensuring a more cohesive legal system. These changes addressed the inefficiencies and weaknesses of the Articles, creating a framework capable of supporting a growing and diverse nation.
Questions:
How did the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution differ in their approach to representation?
What powers were granted to the national government under the Constitution that were lacking under the Articles?
Why do you think the Constitution has been more successful than the Articles of Confederation?

Answer 1

How did the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution differ in their approach to representation?

The Articles of Confederation adopted a unicameral legislature where each state had one vote in Congress, regardless of the state’s population or size. This meant that smaller states had the same level of influence as larger states, which led to frustrations, particularly from the more populous states. On the other hand, the Constitution established a bicameral legislature consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the Senate, every state is granted equal representation with two senators, while in the House, representation is based on population, allowing larger states greater influence in legislative matters. This dual system aimed to ensure that both large and small states were fairly represented, balancing their interests.

What powers were granted to the national government under the Constitution that were lacking under the Articles?

Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government lacked several crucial powers, which significantly hampered its effectiveness. Specifically, it could not:

1. Impose Taxes: The national government could not collect taxes; it relied on voluntary contributions from the states.
2. Regulate Commerce: The government did not have the authority to regulate interstate or foreign commerce, leading to trade disputes and economic inefficiencies.
3. Enforce Laws: The national government had no executive branch to enforce laws, resulting in a lack of authority to compel compliance.
4. Maintain a Standing Army: Without the power to tax, the government couldn't maintain a standing military, relying instead on state militias for defense.
5. Amendments: Amendments to the Articles required unanimous consent from all thirteen states, making it nearly impossible to adapt to changing circumstances.

In contrast, the Constitution granted the national government the power to levy taxes, regulate commerce, maintain a military, enforce laws through an executive branch, and amend itself through a more flexible process.

Why do you think the Constitution has been more successful than the Articles of Confederation?

The Constitution has been more successful than the Articles of Confederation for several key reasons:

1. Stronger Central Authority: The Constitution established a stronger federal government with the authority to impose taxes, regulate commerce, and enforce laws. This allowed for a more effective and coordinated national response to issues.

2. Balanced Representation: The bicameral legislature created a fair balance between representing both populous and less populous states, which helped to reduce tensions and foster cooperation among the states.

3. Separation of Powers: The establishment of distinct executive, legislative, and judicial branches created a system of checks and balances that prevented any one branch from becoming too powerful, promoting stability and protecting individual rights.

4. Flexibility: The Constitution allowed for amendments and adjustments, providing a mechanism to address the evolving needs of the country. This adaptability has allowed the Constitution to remain relevant over time.

5. Sustainability and Cohesion: With the Constitution, the United States was able to present a united front both domestically and internationally, promoting a sense of national identity and coherence, which was sorely lacking under the Articles.

Overall, these factors contributed to the Constitution's effectiveness in creating a more functional and resilient government capable of supporting a diverse and growing nation.