Federal government would be a whole lot smaller considering it would not have the power to tax. Also, legislation would be hard to pass since it could only be passed with the unanimous consent of the states. Rights might be abused by the national and state governments since the Bill of Rights was not apart of the Articles.
The Articles of Confederation gave power to the States even though Congress was still the main power.
In a sense.The Constitutional Convention, in itself, did not replace the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was created at the Convention and it was based upon some of the ideals that the Articles of Confederation had, but had changed many things.So, in a sense, no. The Constitutional Convention did notreplace the Articles of Confederation, but the Constitution that was created then did.
The Articles of Confederation did NOT provide the United States with an effective government. It lacked many powers that we now have. For example the government in the 1780's couldn't impose taxes, it was unicameral, and it could not declare war. If it would have been effective we would still be under the power of the articles instead of the constitution.
They could give less power to the states while still letting them be independent and free. This would allow the central government to regulate trade, tax fairly which in turn would pay off the war debt. Also, due to the Articles of Confederation, any one state legislature had the power to hold back any ratification that was passed by every other state. This allowed that one state to ask for anything for its own personal gain which might ruin the economy.
The Constitutional Convention was held to revise the Articles of Confederation. However, the delegates were making so many adjustments that they decided to redo it altogether. This new form of goverment became the Constitution that we still use today.
No
The Articles of Confederation gave power to the States even though Congress was still the main power.
No they were abolished when the constitution was put into place.
gold
The Articles of Confederation gave power to the States even though Congress was still the main power.
Well, the Congress of the Confederation was a legislative branch under the Articles of Confederation. So the Constitutional Convention would've still come turned out the way it regularly turned out to be. The states would still have the same powers because the government was under the Articles of Confederation was a weak government anyways.
No. The Articles of Confederation was the first constitution of the United States. The second constitution was the US Constitution of 1789, which is still the constitution of the United States in operation today.
In a sense.The Constitutional Convention, in itself, did not replace the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was created at the Convention and it was based upon some of the ideals that the Articles of Confederation had, but had changed many things.So, in a sense, no. The Constitutional Convention did notreplace the Articles of Confederation, but the Constitution that was created then did.
The Articles of Confederation did NOT provide the United States with an effective government. It lacked many powers that we now have. For example the government in the 1780's couldn't impose taxes, it was unicameral, and it could not declare war. If it would have been effective we would still be under the power of the articles instead of the constitution.
A+ TrueUnder the articles of confederation each state had only one cotes regardless of its population. Some states had 3 or 4 delegates but they still only got one vote.
On November 15, 1777, the second Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Still at war with Great Britain, the colonists were not eager to establish another powerful national government. Three-and-a-half years passed before the states ratified (approved of) the Articles.
No. The constitution was written in 1787 and adapted by 1789 when Washington became president.