Relationship Between The Federal Government And The United States

The Articles of Confederation was first written in 1777. It was passed by the Confederation of Congress. Congress decided that they needed a firm government to organize the states as a whole. At least that was their primary goal. Since each state had separates rules. The Articles of Confederation was later ratified by each state in 1781. It was “America’s first federal constitution” (Keene 138). The confederation had a few strengths but many weaknesses. The nation faced many economic and political issues that lead people to controversy.

The Federalists and the Anti - Federalists played an indispensable part in the establishment of the American Constitution. Federalists were supporters of the constitution, while Anti federalist were against the ratification of the Constitution. Federalists believed in the idea of a larger heterogeneous republic whereas anti federalists wanted a small homogenous republic. Famous federalists like James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton are responsible for giving us paramount pieces of historic documents in the form of “the Federalist papers”. The Federalist papers were 85 documents urging the ratification of the US Constitution. Anti federalist side included people like Samuel Adams, George Mason and Patrick Henry, and they believed the Articles of Confederation should be altered rather than completely changed in the form of the Constitution. Concurring with the Federalist side, it is imperative to see that the Federalists’ argument was more viable, due to the fact that larger republics and “checks and balances” are useful tools in controlling a democracy. We can’t compare ourselves to the way Sparta and Athens operated. Our country would thrive more under a stronger national government rather than a stronger state government.

The relationship between the Federal government and the states is well stable. The Federal government has powers given by the Constitution as well powers or privileges are given to the states which promotes a balance between the two so that our country is not ruled under one specific party or group. The question now is that, are the states rights more than well protected in the current constitution and the political practice.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, which Congress adopted after revision on July 4th, 1776. It avowed that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” that the government cannot violate. On November 15, 1777 the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation . In other words, this was the original Constitution of the United States, and formal sanction of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not happen until March 1, 1781. In fact, the Articles of Confederation did not hold the sovereign states together. It however, created a weak central government, which gave most of the power to the state governments. In reaction to the Lee Resolution, which proposed independence, the Second Continental Congress appointed three committees on June 11, 1776. The one committee drafted the Declaration of Independence. Another drafted plans for forming foreign alliances and the third made arrangements to form the Confederation. The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789.

The Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay are one of the greatest collections of literature from the time period of 1787 to 1788 when the Constitution was being ratified by the states. This collection of eighty-five essays was written for the states, to help them better understand and grasp a concept of why they should vote for the ratification of The Constitution. Why did the Madison, Hamilton, and Jay write The Federalist Papers and what is there underlying meaning? Who were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay? What was Madison trying to say in regards to the concept of federalism, separation of powers, republics and ratifying the Constitution and why? Each of these questions can be further explored and answered in Madison’s Federalist #51. By analyzing #51, with the addition of #10, clarity can be gained on the meaning behind these essays and there obvious importance to the nation’s history.

The most politicized debate in American history has been the arguments made by the Federalists and the Antifederalists over the ideas and powers stated within the United States Constitution. A large number of authors who write about the debates between these two political groups present the ideas of the Federalist and Antifederalist as separate, opposing ideologies about how the U.S. Constitution should either stay the same for the sake of the country or be amended to grant border rights to the public and states. To begin a paper about how this assumption of the two factions always being at odds, first there should be an explanation about the Federalists’ and Antifederalists’ main arguments. The Virginia debate over ratification will be the used as the platform to present the details of their arguments. After those two main objectives are complete, the presentation of information found on the topics that the two parties had arguments between themselves over the true future of the Constitution, and that certain Federalists and Antifederalist shared certain ideas about the problems this Constitution could cause or solve for the United States. To conclude those ideas, a presentation of the political figures of this time period will be used to understand the similarities and differences between the parties. Towards the end of the paper, there will be an explanation of how the ideas of the two parties, mostly Antifederalists, have led to the creation of amendments added to the

The Articles of Confederation was the first written document, after the United States Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, to establish a national government and set up the way that America would function. Although the document is looked upon in history as a failure, it had strengths that would later become a part of the United States Constitution. When the continental congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the weaknesses of the document stemmed from inexperience from its founders and their fear of creating a nation similar to the one they had just fought to declare independence from. A new nation to run required a document to set the rules and guidelines that it would follow, and the continental congress believed that the Articles of Confederation would be the one to do it. While the Articles held a small handful of strengths, they were implemented poorly and the weaknesses that plagued the document lead to its quick demise.

The Articles of Confederation were written by a Second Continental Congressional committee during the early part of the American Revolution in 1777. A report of the proposed articles was presented to the committee by John Dickson (committee head) just eight days after the signing of the Declaration Of Independence.

The debate over the effectiveness of the Articles of Confederation has been a long lasting one. In order to create a document that would adequately protect the American people and their interests’ the Founding Fathers embarked on a journey to create a document that would address all of the discrepancies found within the Articles of Confederation Therefore, the purpose of this paper is threefold. First, to compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787. Second, to analyze the drafting of the Constitution. Third, to compare and contrast the debate over ratification of the Constitution between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

Federalism may be described as a system of government that features a separation of powers and functions between the state and national governments. This system has been used since the very founding of the United States. The constitution defines a system of dual federalism, which ensures sovereignty of the state and national governments. This is put in place in order to limit the national government’s power. However, the Great Depression of 1929 greatly weakened the nation’s economic systems. President Roosevelt made many changes in the relationship between the national and state governments, thus revolutionizing our understanding of federalism, through the New Deal. This essay seeks to explore the changes and attributes that define

Articles I, II, and III of the Unites States Constitution outline the importance of dividing government into 3 branches, this system was designed by our forefathers to serve the people. With any division of power obstacles are bound to arise, usually when attempting to enact important legislation. Since the US Constitution was written to the present day there has been conflicts between the supporters of a strong federal government and campaigners of states’ rights. This paper will address these three aspects associated with the first three articles of the United States Constitution.

The Article of Confederation, created in 1781, was the original document that sets the structure of the United States. Over several years, the document had proven to not be an effective way to govern the country. Civil unrest and economic problems led the founding fathers to come together in Philadelphia in May of 1787. They debated for four months on the terms of the new document. It took another 10 months for the document to be ratified.

Federalism was an inevitable and paramount mechanism to creation the of the Union. Therefore, it is acceptable that its governing principles would define and refine a majority of the nation’s history. Shaping the government, laws, and politics of the current and future generations during the creation of the Constitution, federalism permanently altered the life of every American. Federalism and the Constitution were derived from a similar ideal: endurance of free society had to be preserved by a sense of unity that acted as a safeguard against prevalent dangers, advanced the common good while still maintaining responsiveness to the diversity of the nation (Wechsler, 1954). The Constitution established a central government that possessed the capacity to interpret its

Any nationwide endeavor across the world over is always faced with a myriad of challenges when one factor in, the interest of different individuals or groups. During the early years of the USA, there were many problems that politicians at the time faced when trying to create and strengthen the country’s Constitution. In the early 1780’s the young country was in a deep depression, and this played a key role in influencing the exercise as it ultimately led to a heated debate about the powers of the National and State governments. Most of the conservative politicians at the time preferred a stronger federal government while state radicals believed that states should have more power since it was in a better position to determine what was best for their citizens (Jilson, 2009). More sticking points divided the founding fathers which threatened the stability and establishment of the USA, such as slavery and federalism.

This debate greatly contributed our understanding of our national government and provided for stronger protections and the addition of a bill of rights. Although the Constitution did ultimately get passed, this did not necessarily prove the Federalists right in every instance and the Anti-Federalists wrong. This is particularly is proven in the evidence of the many predictions of the Anti-Federalists that have come true and the change of opinion on several essays from "The Federalist" that the authors later changed their opinion on. The decisive reason for the Constitution's eventual ratification and the alleged failure of the Anti-Federalist can be pinpointed to several key issues, some of which are the lack of an cohesive opinion of the Anti-Federalists, the absence of a worthy alternative, and a weaker argument to be debated. This is notably portrayed in the Anti-Federalist dissention of the Constitutions clauses for the office of the President and reveals similarities to the failures they suffered in their position against Constitution as a whole.