Aoc vs the Constitution Essay Example for Free

Aoc vs the Constitution Essay The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are only six years apart in history. Knowing this you would think that they have very few differences but it is the complete opposite. As soon as the Articles of Confederation were ratified, it got everyone thinking about how to create a good system of government. That is where the Constitution came in. The Constitution changed almost everything from the Articles of Confederation making the national government a lot more powerful. The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781. The goal of the Articles was to balance the need for national coordination of the War of Independence with the fear that centralized political power was a threat to liberty of the people. The Articles stated that the new national government was to be a perpetual union. The Articles gave the thirteen states their individual sovereignty, freedom and independence. Under the Articles the national government had a one house Congress, where each state cast one vote. There was no president and no judiciary. Major decisions needed the approval of nine states to be passed. There were only a few powers given to the national government which were to declare war, conduct foreign affairs, and make treaties with other governments. Congress did not have financial resources. It did not have the power to levy taxes or to regulate commerce. Revenue came from contributions from the states and in order to amend an Article you needed a unanimous decision from the states. This made it hard to amend or to change anything. The Articles basically made it impossible to have a national government on a large scale. The Constitution of the USA was adopted in 1787. The Constitution created a legislature, an executive, and a national judiciary. Congress was given the right to raise money without having to rely on the states, like in the Articles, and states were prohibited from infringing on the rights of property. The idea was that the government would represent the people. The Constitution established a two house Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The Senate would include two members from each state and the House of Representatives would have members appointed according to the population of the state. Senators would be chosen by state legislatures while the Representatives would be elected by the people. This was the first step toward the expansion of democracy. The Constitution did not set any rules for qualifications to vote; they left that up to the states. The Constitution strengthened national authority. It gave the president the job of enforcing the law and commanding the military. It gave Congress the right to levy taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce, declare war, and foreign policy. The Constitution declared the national legislature as the supreme Law of the Land. It did however leave the majority of day to day affairs up to the states such as education and law enforcement. It created a checks and balances system between the states and the national government. This was the idea to prevent any branch of the national government from dominating the other two. I think that the Constitution did a better job protecting liberty. This is because even though there were way more provisions and what seems like way more restrictions, it actually gave guide lines so that your basic rights would not be taken away from you. It also made the voting system more fair and the fact that the House of Representatives were proportioned to the population size also made a lot of sense. It also gave strict provisions to insure that the state could not infringe your land. I also think that the Constitution did a way better job running a government. First of all it was a lot more specific so it cleared up a lot of confusion. Second the two house Congress was a much better idea and the checks and balances were also smart because it ensured that no one ever got too powerful. I also think it is a good thing that they insisted on picking a leader, president, for the whole country because I think you need one man to lead the country and make the decisions rather than a few arguing all the time. Also giving the national government some of the powers that the states once had ensured that the law would be fair to everyone, not just the ones making them in the states. As you can see the differences between these two significant documents of our history are tremendous. While the Articles set a few provisions basically empowering the states, the Constitution did the exact opposite putting the national government in charge. Obviously this was the way to go because this is the document that our country still runs by today.