Should The Constitution Be Ratified

Upon considering whether the Constitution in its current form should be ratified, four main points of consideration come into focus: the four main arguments determining the future for the United States and its people. Under the current form of government, the Articles of Confederation, a question of whether a stronger central government is needed is asked. This question is followed by if the United States would be more prosperous under a confederation of loosely governed states, and if a powerful national government consolidates the states. Next, the question of whether the Constitution provides a fair, honest system of representation for all classes of people, and finally, whether the document supports natural and

The Articles of Confederation could also be determined ineffective. They did not provide a president, any kind of executive agency, or judiciary and they did not have any kind of tax base or way to pay off state and national debts. Document A shows how ineffective the government was because it was unable to impose taxation due to a very small minority. Rhode Island rejected the tax so the government decided not to put it into effect. If taxes had been put in place, some of the state and national debts may have been able to be paid off. Without a strong leader, basic things like taxes cannot be imposed, which is why the Articles were so ineffective. They did not provide a way for the states to be controlled.

The Articles were very weak and instable; they were not capable of keeping the country together for very long. The Articles for example were Unicameral, while the Constitution was bicameral. It was just not as strong as the Constitution. The Article did not even have an Executive Branch. United States would definitely not have come to its position it’s in today with the Articles of Confederations. Just look at their way of entering states to the Union, they have to get all of the 9 states to agree on entering it. But that’s not the hard part, the hard part is imagining having to get this news across to every state, it would be a very long Process. While the Constitution just makes Congress enter any new states. America has definitely been a lot better off with United States Constitution!

The Articles of Confederation became the first guiding principles of the original thirteen states. However, the weaknesses embedded in the articles became obvious, outweighing its positive impact and they were ratified in 1781. George Washington sated that the articles were "little more than a shadow without the substance."1 They limited the central government’s ability to work smoothly and adversely affected the economy. Lack of power left the government in dismay and they sought a fix to their problems without becoming a tyrannical monarchy. The founding fathers believed that replacing the articles with The Constitution was the best way to give the central government enough power to carry out its tasks. In 1787 delegates from all 13 states met in Pennsylvania to begin amending the articles. This process revealed many of the similarities and differences that were contained within The Articles of Confederation and The Constitution.

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

In conclusion, the Articles of Confederation provided the United States with an ineffective government in the 1780’s because of the lack of power to tax, raise an army, or regulate trade; however, it redeemed itself with the creation of the land ordinances of 1785 and 1787, and keeping the states together after the American Revolution. This government held the states together after the war, but it would not have for much longer if the constitutional convention did not draft a new document with which to govern the country that would fix the arising issues that came with the Articles of

The feebleness of Congress was a major weakness of the Articles of Confederation. When the Articles of Confederation were adopted in 1777, they created a “loose confederation” of states (Pageant, 181). This meant that each state was independent and sovereign, linked by Congress only to deal with common problems and foreign affairs. Congress was meant to be part of a united central power of the government, but due to the abuse suffered from the king, the states so limited the powers of the central government to the point of powerlessness.

First, the Articles of Confederation were viewed as an overall weakness. It did not allow congress to obtain really any power over the people; therefore we had a weak central government. Congress was not granted the power that they needed in order to keep things in order,“Probably the most unfortunate part of the Articles of confederation were that the central government could not prevent one state from discriminating against other states in the quest for foreign commerce.” (Ginsberg, et. al. 2014: 35). States were rebelling and our new found country was in chaos and our Congress was not able to prevent states from discriminating against other states. For example, another downfall to this document was that, “The Articles of Confederation were concerned

The Articles of Confederation wasn't necessary the most efficient document for the American people to abide by. The biggest faults of

constitution still needed to be ratified in order to be set in place. Nine of the twelve states would have to approve for the U.S. constitution to be ratified. The were still several states that opposed. American leaders such as james madison, alexander hamilton, and many others wrote the Federalist papers 3. Eighty-five essays aimed at convincing the anti-federalist to ratify the new constitution. The federalist papers were a significant part of the U.S. political history and played a key role in getting the U.S. Constitution ratified. The basis of the federalist papers was strong government to hold states accountable to the people or “mob”. The federalist papers basis was to also face many of the problems the articles of confederation could not solve. The articles of confederation mainly could not do important functions such as regulating commerce and the ability to

The bill of rights,separation of power,and all the checks and balances are all good reasons why the constitution she be ratified.Some background information you probable want to know about the constitution is the constitution is ratified as are governments rules.Also before the constitution there was something called The Articles Of Confederation.

The United States Constitution overcame the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and provided for the organization of the new government. After the American Revolutionary War in America, the colonists needed a government so no one could take away their power. The Articles of Confederation overcame the weaknesses by creating settling in the Western Lands, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The Constitutional Convention provided for the organization of the new government by creating The Great Compromise and The Three-Fifths Compromise. Every state had to ratify the constitution, and not every state would agree for the Constitution to be ratified, this provided for the organization of the new government. The United States Constitution

Throughout American history the constitution has been the framework for democracy. Written in 1787, the constitution was a great conception for the thirteen colonies. Now two-hundred and twenty-eight years later the United States is not a county of freedom fighting European-Americans. In this diverse and modern society concerns have come to surface as to whether the constitution should be ratified for the future to come. Ratifying the constitution sounds like a good notion, but is nearly impossible to do. I believe the constitution should stand as is but allow another document arise that corrects the loop holes of the constitution.

One reason we should not ratify the Constitution is because the Executive branch would be able to tax citizen and the states wouldn 't be able to say no.Amos Singletary stated that Congress wouldn 't lay taxes directly but they will still collect all the money they want. "They tell us Congress won 't lay direct taxes upon us, but collect all the money they want by impost."This means that Congress is going to tax the people in other way then directly and they can tax the people with as much money as they want. That means that many people are going to go into debt because they don 't have enough money to pay them. Singletary also says, Congress expects to be in a higher class of the Constitution and get all of the money and power. "They expect to be the managers of this Constitution, and get all the power and all the money into their own hands."This means that Congress is going to receive all of the money that is supposed to get our country out of debt and use it for

Right now a debate is accruing about weather or not we should ratify the constitution. This is an important moment in our country history because if we ratify the constitution it could make our country better or make it worse.We are at a crossroads in the history of our country. The Articles of Confederation are not working. They give the states too much power and are too weak. We can not pay our debts as a nation.The proposed Constitution would give us a strong government so that we can rise money through taxes. It could create a strong system of representatives. For these reasons I think we should ratify the Constitution.