Introduction
It is imperative to mention the drafting of the Constitution is a fascinating topic that is frequently discussed by scholars. The importance of the document should not be disregarded because the United States had to deal with numerous difficulties at that time as a result of the Great Depression. The problem is that powers of Congress were limited by the Articles of Confederation, and it was not an easy task to establish unity when such limitations were present. The legislation was quite problematic, and it was evident that alterations were necessary because the government could not function efficiently. Furthermore, a convention was required, and some points had to be revised (Vile, 2005).
Articles and the Constitution
It is necessary to note that similarities between the previous document and the new one are quite minimal in this case because the primary goal of new principles was to address the biggest issues that were present and establish unity. The first resemblance that could be highlighted is that they were developed by some individuals, and they both were focused on the laws of the United States. Moreover, they were official and regulated operations of the government. It was evident that Articles had many weaknesses, and the government tried to resolve the biggest problems.
The first critical difference that should be highlighted is that Congress was unicameral according to the articles, but consisted of two houses in the second case. Also, it should be noted that the Constitution paid enormous attention to fairness, and tried to ensure that the number of representatives corresponds to the population. Voting also has changed significantly, and every senator or an individual that represents a state could vote (Vile, 2005). The process of appointment is also vital, and it is stated in the Constitution that the election of representatives should depend on vote percentages. Term durations were also different, and it was one year according to the articles and from two to six on the other hand.
Particular limitations that were viewed as unnecessary were also removed in the Constitution. The core dissimilarity is that congressional pay was no longer provided by the states, and it was a responsibility of the federal government. The way new ones can be accepted has also changed, and it should be regulated by Congress according to the Constitution. The position of a president was also introduced, and nothing similar was previously discussed. The court system was also established, and it was much easier to manage possible conflicts (Vile, 2005). Another issue that needed to be resolved is that there was no consensus on what needs to be done with Western Lands, and some of the conflicts were quite violent. The Articles tried to address some of the problems, but it was easy to identify that the situation was still quite problematic, and the Constitution has helped to deal with claims that many states had.
Drafting
The process was quite complicated because delegates have disagreed on various topics, and some of the areas were especially problematic. For instance, the fact that some of the states had slaves was a significant issue that had to be addressed. Supporters of slavery argued that the government has no right to interfere with such practice, and the opposition believed that it hurts the reputation of the country and may lead to severe consequences. The problem is that the support of those states was needed to ratify the document. Furthermore, a compromise was necessary, and some provisions were considered to ensure that the Congress could not control the importation of slaves. Other states could not introduce laws that would help to defend fugitives. Also, they had no right to vote but were allowed to be counted for apportionment.
The debate regarding the number of votes was especially problematic. The problem is that big states thought that the number of available votes should depend on the population. However, smaller ones believed that this approach was not fair and thought that it would be reasonable if opportunities were equal. However, the Great Compromise proposed by Roger Sherman allowed both sides to agree, and each state had two senators in the Congress that was selected by legislatures (Vile, 2005).
The Debate over the Ratification
It is paramount to note that it has led to numerous discussions and disagreements because people had different views on particular points. Many authors have written a set of articles that would support ratification, and they were known as Federalists. For instance, it was suggested that “you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself” (Allen & Cloonan, 2000, p. 248). In other words, it was believed that it is a crucial step that is needed to make progress. Other supporters also argued that the primary purpose of this document is to secure freedom (Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, 2008). Their opposition also wanted to provide their arguments and explain why they think that it is not reasonable. Anti-Federalists stated that the national government was given too much power, and states were hurt by the document. It was believed that only a small republic was capable of protecting the rights of an individual. John Hancock was elected to lead the commission but had issues with health. Moreover, he could not choose if the approach was reasonable or not (Maier, 2011).
Bill of Rights
One of the core arguments of Anti-federalists against the Constitution was that the liberties of people were not considered, and Federalists were willing to develop a set of amendments related to this subject matter. The primary objective of the Bill of Rights was to provide a particular form of protection for individuals that cannot be broken by the Congress or states. Moreover, both sides had an opportunity to review fourteen amendments that were proposed, and some of them were not approved. The biggest difference between the parties is that Anti-federalists were not as united, and they focused on different aspects. For instance, Patrick Henry did not support the amendments and did not believe that they would be effective (Labunski, 2006). However, they have helped to ensure that the government is not given excessive power, and most conflicts were avoided. It can be seen that states were too worried that they would get hurt by the document, and the Congress believed that the Constitution needs to be ratified because it would be a significant improvement over the articles and would support the development of the United States.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is evident that the drafting process was complicated, and the government had to deal with numerous difficulties and complications before the ratification. However, individuals that participated were able to come to a consensus and the Constitution is viewed as one of the crucial documents because many critical aspects were taken into account and it had helped to address some of the problems that were present, and needs of every party were considered.
References
Allen, W. B., & Cloonan, K. A. (2000). The Federalist Papers: A commentary. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (2008). The Federalist, on the New Constitution. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange.
Labunski, R. (2006). James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Maier, P. (2011). Ratification: The people debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Vile, J. R. (2005). The Constitutional Convention of 1787. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.