Introduction
The Articles of Confederation were a combination of guidelines that was adopted as the constitution of America immediately after the Revolutionary War in 1777. After a grueling Fifteen Month Debate, the document was adopted by Congress as the first governing document to the U.S.A. It was subjected to amendment after three years and thereafter remained operational until 1788 when the Constitution was ratified. The Article was drawn to help define the union that existed among the newly merged states in terms of governance and adherence to the rule of law. After the establishment of this document, Congress later saw a need to ratify it to allow for the latest development, lest the document becomes obsolete. This essay will look at the various views of critics and supporters alike on the Article of Federation and the New Constitution. The paper goes further to analyze the viability of the Constitution in today’s society.
Madison’s View on the Article
Madison’s major concern as he argued was based on professional views, on the interest of the entire public. Madison had it that the status quo which the Article advocates were supporting was simply pernicious and inadequate and that were it that things were the way Henrie had said, then he himself would not have proposed for any ratification. He added that the Article has condoned impunity, and no rule of law was being followed, every commoner could disobey the authority. The system was so full of loopholes that needed to be patched, thus it called for the enactment of a new constitution. The Article, he says was giving too much freedom to individual states with its sovereignty allowance to such a level that it was possible for a single go against what the country dictates, hence may do something that can plunge the entire country in jeopardy.
Finally, he sought to empower the people, and move from the old way of vesting too much power on the individual state controllers. To address this, therefore, he proposed a power-sharing strategy among various government branches. Most of his ideas have so far been entrenched in the contemporary U.S government. For instance vesting of the power of the legislature on the Congress and not on the individual states as was provided for in the Articles. The composition of the member representatives based on the population density which dictated the number of districts was also Madison’s idea…this was a proposal in order to get a relatively universal view of the public.
Henrie’s View on the Ratification
Henrie argued that the amendment would endanger public liberty and limit the freedom that was provided for in the Articles. He stated that the new rules which were proposed by the ratification advocates were quite stringent to the people and were not in any way a reflection of what they could have liked. He added that empowering the Legislature would deprive people of the power that they value so much. The perfect tranquility and safety enjoyed by every American people would be taken away, he added. Henrie called himself a servant of the people, and so he claimed to be feeling the agony which the ratifications threatened to subject the people to i.e. taking away their freedom and putting them under full security check. He also argued that the proposed amendments will put in jeopardy the relationship with other foreign nations, and finally, he said that the slave owners who will have to assume the same status with the slaves they once owned…an act which he described as despicable.
Publius (James Madison), Federalist Paper #10 (1788)
This is a document that was published by the federal government to drum support for the ratification. It gave recommendations on how the proposed new system had planned to balance the needs of both the minority and majority groups. The document gave out an action scheme that the republic government had planned to put in place to ensure that there would be an equal representation of interest for all American citizens.
Federalist Number 51 (February 6, 1788)
This was a document that gave provisions on how to subject different arms or departments of the government to performance analysis. It reflects Madison’s ideas of power and responsibility-sharing among different departments. By this division, a lot of views would be addressed to cater to divergent needs. By having many choices, there would definitely be a reduction of “priority clash” or simply what Madison referred to as “conflict of interest”. Therefore, to monitor the effectiveness of these departments, there had to be an establishment of a system of checks and balances within the government to ensure that no one department exerts excess power over the others. This document provided for that.
The Bill of Rights
There was a need to protect the individual rights of citizens and so the constitution was amended to allow for this through the introduction of the Bill of Rights. The idea of effecting the amendment was to consider both the doer and the recipient of an act provided in the constitution so that one may not overuse any given freedom. For instance, some contentious rights like the freedom of speech, worship, and ownership of guns, to mention a few, could be abused in some cases
Conclusion
The new constitution has not proved prone to abuse of power as was the expectation of many. By the allowance that alterations could be made just out of the agreement by a simple majority and not by all the states as earlier given by the Articles, it has created a chief loophole through which could result in flaws to contaminate the entire system. But The choice to empower the people to be able to choose representatives has seen the democracy of the United states climb several steps high. The views presented to Senate in most cases reflected close if not exactly the demands of the public majority…it has seceded in the elimination of the “consolidation evil” thus a great fit in today’s society..
Works Cited
Divine et al. (2007). “America Past and Present”. Print on Demand.7th Edition.