The articles were more like a loose association of states rather than a cohesive government. They created a framework where each state retained significant autonomy and power, leading to a lack of centralized authority. This resulted in difficulties in governance, such as challenges in taxation and interstate relations, ultimately highlighting the weaknesses of the system.
Because the articles didn't provide a strong enough basis for the nation, under the articles the US was more like 13 small countries with a loose alliance. The Constitution allowed them to have an army, unified form of government, etc.
The central government was more limited under the Articles Of Confederation than under the Constitution. People did not trust the government to have too much power. It looks like they were right.
The Framers revised the Articles because many thought that the states needed more power.The states thought it was too much like the British government so they wanted more power.
The Articles created a one-house legislature as the Confederation's main institution. Making the government and unicameral system of government. Read more:
No they are not the same. The Articles of Confederation didn't provide the power for the government to collect taxes, for example. No, they "were" not the same* *Different author from the first paragraph.
It did not give too much power to the central government. Not one group had ample power over another and gave the people a more individual feeling rather than a strict union.
He stated the government created by the Articles of confederation was" little more than a shadow government without substance ."
States had more power. They did not want the federal government to have too much power like Britain/Parliament. What couldn't Congress do under the Articles of Confederation? Congress couldn't regulate trade or collect taxes.
Because the articles didn't provide a strong enough basis for the nation, under the articles the US was more like 13 small countries with a loose alliance. The Constitution allowed them to have an army, unified form of government, etc.
Because the articles didn't provide a strong enough basis for the nation, under the articles the US was more like 13 small countries with a loose alliance. The Constitution allowed them to have an army, unified form of government, etc.
The central government was more limited under the Articles Of Confederation than under the Constitution. People did not trust the government to have too much power. It looks like they were right.
The Framers revised the Articles because many thought that the states needed more power.The states thought it was too much like the British government so they wanted more power.
The states had more power than the national government
The Articles created a one-house legislature as the Confederation's main institution. Making the government and unicameral system of government. Read more:
No they are not the same. The Articles of Confederation didn't provide the power for the government to collect taxes, for example. No, they "were" not the same* *Different author from the first paragraph.
The states had more power than the national government
The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are similar in that they both establish a framework for government in the United States. However, the Constitution provides for a stronger central government with more specific powers and a system of checks and balances, while the Articles of Confederation created a weaker central government with more power given to the individual states.