Chapter 2
The Articles of Confederation is weaker then the Constitution because of the vital components it lacked. Firstly congress couldn't tax citizens or products, it only allowed requested revenues from the state. Under the Articles it was simply hard to govern the people. No matter what size your state was you were allowed one vote, which didn't really represent the people's needs as a whole. Also at this time there were only 13 states and 9 had to approve something before it was passed, which was incredibly hard. It also lacked the three vital branches of government. Had the Articles stayed intact and the Constitution been created the government power would severely been lacking , in a bad way. There were few limits on state authority.
These articles are very interesting to read. I learned a couple things I wasn't aware of. Firstly, that the Vice President is President of the Senate, but has no vote unless they are equally divided. I was also unaware of the Presidents listed duties, power, and lack there of power according to the Constitution.
The ruling of Marbury vs. Madison established judicial review. This case made it possible for the Supreme Court to declare legislation unconstitutional. It's so important because federal courts are able to void acts of Congress that are in conflict with the Constitution.
I believe ultimately our government is more like the Anti-Federalist envisioned. It's hard to say one or the other, but I think a lot of the Anti-Federalist worries have come into play over the expansion of our government. Like take for instance it's obviously a good thing we have the Bill of Rights, because without it congress could abridge our freedom of speech. Another thing to think about is the health insurance, I personally think what's going on right now proves in fact that our government has to much power.
:)
I was also unaware that the Vice President is the President of the senate until I read the articles. Although I can understand your point of view about the current Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist stand point, I would have to disagree. Our Bill of Rights now is crucial, however I think that there are more Federalist policies in our government than Anti-Federalist. And although we consider the national government today to have too much power, doesn't that mean that it is more of a Federalist government than Anti-Federalist? Maybe an Anti-Federalist approach would be preferred today, but in my opinion a Federalists' opinion based government is what the United States has.
ReplyDeleteI agree not being able to tax hurt them in different ways indeed. The Articles of Confederation had many flaws. They had no control over commerce. The states were hurting each other stunting economical growth. The Articles made governing difficult. The U.S. debt went unpaid, which led to no credit and no assistance from other countries. The case Masbury v. Madison brought about judicial review which means authority of courts to declare laws passed by Congress and acts of the executive branch to be unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI commented on Kailey Neal, Donna Fox, and Linda Aytes blogs.
ReplyDeleteKristen,
ReplyDeleteI find i agree alot with you on all you answers and also find it very interesting that the Vice President is president over the senate but has no vote unless equally divided. Although i feel that the U.S. is more like the federalist because at it roots it is what the federalist envisioned but with on a few touches showing antifederalist influence. The biggest influence being the Bill of Rights.