Some Weaknesses of the Articles

• The Articles of Confederation gave too much power to the states and not enough to the central government. Essentially, they created a weak central government, under which the states could not operate effectively as a single nation.

• The articles created no separate executive department to carry out and enforce the acts of Congress and no national court system to interpret the meaning of laws.
• 9 out of the 13 states had to approve any major law before it was passed.
• There was no standing army to protect the nation.
• Each state could create its own foreign policy, including the passage of treaties.
• Each state could create its own money and it might not be accepted in other states. The war left a huge debt, but the Articles didn't allow congress to collect taxes, only to ask for money from the states.
• Under the Articles there was only a unicameral legislature so that there was no separation of powers.
• The central government under the Articles was too weak since the majority of the power rested with the states.
• In order to change or amend the Articles, unanimous approval of the states was required which essentially meant that changes to the Articles were impossible.
• Under the Articles, Congress did not have the power to regulate commerce which would cause competition between states, as well as diplomatic issues.

"The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" were adopted by the 2nd Continental Congress on November 15th, 1777. They sought to combine the disparate colonies under a single governmental entity. They were the first attempt at a government for the United States, but were eventually replaced by the Constitution.

Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation gave too much power to the states and not enough to the central government. The central government wasn't able to pass laws or taxes if all the states did not approve. There was no president or federal judiciary. Essentially, the colonies could not operate effectively as a nation.

The articles of confederation was the first constitution of the United States but soon after its publication was perished because it was too weak.

BC pills are 98% effective without a condom.

Mirena is 99% effective without a condom. Mirena is one of the most effective methods of birth control out there right now.

Not to 'ninja' this question, but I had the same question, and I wanted to clarify, are these numbers implying that the male can ejaculate in the female without a condom and maintain that level of effectiveness at preventing pregnancy (as you would with a condom), or are you not supposed to ejaculate in the female? Sorry if that sounds lewd, but my wife and I use the Mirena, and are genuinely trying to find out if I'm supposed to be able to ejaculate in her and have a 99% chance of preventing pregnancy, or if the intended use does not allow me to ejaculate in her and keep that 99% effectiveness? Thanks.

Yes, you can ejaculate in your wife while she is on the Mirena. That's the whole point of getting it and yes it's still 99% effective.

These percentages are for sexually active women - hopefully a woman who is non-sexually active has 100% chance of not becoming pregnant! A sexually active woman who is correctly using an effective method of BC (BCP, IUD, Depo shot, patch, ring, implant) whose partner always uses a condom has just about 100% chance of not becoming pregnant.

The Mirena works in two ways - the IUD itself alters the lining of the uterus. Next by constantly emitting a low dosage of hormones similar to those in some BCPs - cervical mucus is thick and sticky so inhospitable to sperm, the hormones also prevents the ovary from releasing eggs - no ovulation - no pregnancy.

Women who have an IUD should use a condom if they are not in a monogamous, committed relationship - having multiple partners (or having a partner who has multiple partners) increases the risk of infection that could lead to sterility.
I have been on it for 4 years now....and no pregnancy. The periods are few and far between which raises a concern to me. I do not think that it is healthy to have a period once every 4 or 5 months. The duration of it is 5 years and I am in my 4th years, so I would say that the odds are in the favor of the label description.
Mirena is an IUD or Intrauterine Device. It is a birth control alternative. No form of birth control can guarantee to be 100% effective.

See related links for more information.
Like any form of contraception there is a very small chance you can get pregnant with a Mirena coil, I understand the risk is about 1 in 1000 women using this type of contraception will get pregnant in a year. If you do get pregnant using the coil you should seek medical advice immediately as there is a chance that the baby can be harmed by the coil.
I can personally attest to getting pregnant with the Mirena. I had the Mirena in place for almost 4 years and I recently found out I was pregnant. The removal of the IUD was successful but I still ran into complications after 7 weeks the doctor could not detect a heartbeat. Last week because the sack would not pass naturally, I had to have a D and C to remove the sack. Though this may be a horror story for me, I have read about successful pregnancies while getting pregnant with a IUD. I am now faced with what form of birth control to take when I return to my follow up appointment, but I will say I am actually considering another IUD.
Unlikely but possible if the IUD has moved without your knowledge, however you are supposed to check the threads frequently to prevent this. More effective than the pill.
Yes, it has happened to me twice. Both ended in miscarriages
can you get pregnant while on Mirena?
Mirena is an IUD or Intrauterine Device. It is a birth control alternative. No form of birth control can guarantee to be 100% effective.

See related links for more information.
Like any form of contraception there is a very small chance you can get pregnant with a Mirena coil, I understand the risk is about 1 in 1000 women using this type of contraception will get pregnant in a year. If you do get pregnant using the coil you should seek medical advice immediately as there is a chance that the baby can be harmed by the coil.
I can personally attest to getting pregnant with the Mirena. I had the Mirena in place for almost 4 years and I recently found out I was pregnant. The removal of the IUD was successful but I still ran into complications after 7 weeks the doctor could not detect a heartbeat. Last week because the sack would not pass naturally, I had to have a D and C to remove the sack. Though this may be a horror story for me, I have read about successful pregnancies while getting pregnant with a IUD. I am now faced with what form of birth control to take when I return to my follow up appointment, but I will say I am actually considering another IUD.
Unlikely but possible if the IUD has moved without your knowledge, however you are supposed to check the threads frequently to prevent this. More effective than the pill.
Yes, it has happened to me twice. Both ended in miscarriages
Yes you can, I am 5 weeks pregnant with it in place.
No birth control is 100% effective. There's always a chance that you may get pregnant.
IUDs are one of the most effective forms of birth control available. Better than 99% effective, or less than 1 out of 100 women will get pregnant each year if they use the ParaGard or the Mirena IUD.

The IUD doesn't protect against sexually transmitted infections. Using a condom along with the IUD will reduce the risk of infection.

If you have an IUD and believe you maybe pregnant you should schedule an appointment with your health care provider as soon as possible.
Yes. It is less likely, significantly less likely, but it can happen. This can happen if it is not working properly, if it is not inserted properly, or there is a defect. Also, nothing is 100% perfect, so there is still a chance that you can get pregnant.

The articles gave the government no separation of powers.

The government was too weak, as the Articles left much of the power to the states.

Congress didn't have the power to tax.

Congress couldn't regulate commerce between the states.

To change the Articles, it had to be decided unanimously by all states.

Also, 9 out of the 13 states had to approve any major law before it was passed, so that even the normal business of running a government was difficult.

There was no president to lead, no established court system, and every state had only one vote in congress.

Attempting to limit the power of the central government, the Second Continental Congress created one without sufficient power to govern effectively, which led to serious national and international problems. The greatest weakness of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation was its inability to regulate trade and levy taxes.

---

Paper money is what brought down the Confederation. Congress printed money to the point of completely destroying the currency. From this act came the phrase "not worth a continental".

The truth is that because fiat currencies were allowed to exist, eventually the currency was ruined. There were many Federalists who were dissatisfied with the Articles of Confederation, as they did not result in a strong centralized government. Alexander Hamilton was chief among them.

The collapsing currency created a chance for the Federalists to create a style of government that they supported much more. The debates between the Anti-federalists and the Federalists were still continuing. Thomas Jefferson even went as far as to remove himself from the signing of the Constitution.

---

The Articles of Confederation, the first official government of the United States had many serious weaknesses.

1) Under the Articles there was only a unicameral legislature (meaning only one legislative branch) so that there was no separation of powers.

2) The central government under the Articles was too weak since the majority of the power rested with the states.

3) Congress, under the Articles, did not have the power to tax which meant that they could never put their finances in order.

4) In order to change or amend the Articles, unanimous approval of the states was required which essentially meant that changes to the Articles were impossible.

5) For any major laws to pass they had to be approved by 9 or the 13 states which proved difficult to do so that even the normal business of running a government was difficult.

6) Under the Articles, Congress did not have the power to regulate commerce which will cause competition between states as well as diplomatic issues.

7)Judicial proceedings in one state must be honored by other states and only Congress can mediate disputes between states.

---

The Weakness in the Articles of Confederation:

The Articles of Confederation gave too much power to the states and not enough to the central government. The central government wasn't able to pass laws or taxes if all the states did not approve. There was no president or federal judiciary. Essentially, the colonies could not operate effectively as a nation.

The Articles gave most of the power to the individual states. Most feared that their authority would be taken away by a strong federal government. The "anti-Federalists" (led by Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and James Monroe) believed that a central government should be strictly limited in its role.

One of the main weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation was that it lacked a Bill Of Rights. The Bill of Rights was one thing that most delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 could agree on. We needed to have rights and freedoms and liberty because those were the principles that this country was founded on. We were being treated unfairly and unjustly by the British and when we became independent from them we needed a Bill of Rights to make sure that nobody could rule us like the British did ever again. Also, the Articles of Confederation did not have a strong central government that could make decisions on behalf of all of the states. That is why the states were treating each other like foreign countries. These two examples are just a couple of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
goverment has no power to tax, goverment has no power to regulate trade, and they cant give states too much power

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, customarily referred to as the Articles of Confederation, was the first Constitutionof the United_Statesand legally established the union of the states. The Second_Continental_Congressappointed a committee to draft the Articles in June 1776 and sent the draft to the states for ratification in November 1777. The ratification process was completed in March 1781, legally federating the sovereign and independent states, already cooperating through the Continental Congress, into a new Federationstyled the "United States of America". Under the Articles the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically relinquished to the central government.

On June 12, 1776, a day after appointing a committee to prepare a draft declaration of independence, the Second Continental Congress resolved to appoint a committee of thirteen to prepare a draft of a constitution for a confederate type of union. The last draft of the Articles was written in the summer of 1777 and the Second Continental Congress approved them for ratification by the States on November 15, 1777, in York,_Pennsylvania, Pennsylvaniaafter a year of debate. In practice the final draft of the Articles served as the De_factosystem of government used by the Congress ("the United States in Congress assembled") until it became De_jureby final ratification on March 1, 1781; at which point Congress became the Congress_of_the_Confederation. The Articles set the rules for operations of the "United States" confederation. The confederation was capable of making war, negotiating diplomatic agreements, and resolving issues regarding the western territories. An important element of the Articles was that Article XIII stipulated that "their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state" and "Perpetual_Union".

The Articles were created by the chosen representatives of the states in the Second Continental Congress out of a perceived need to have "a plan of confederacy for securing the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the United States." Although serving a crucial role in the victory in the American_Revolutionary_War, a group of reformers,Answers.comknown as "Federalism_in_the_United_States", felt that the Articles lacked the necessary provisions for a sufficiently effective government. Fundamentally, a Federationwas sought to replace the Confederation. The key criticism by those who favored a more powerful central Sovereign_state(i.e. the federalists)[Wikipedia:Citation_needed] was that the government (i.e. the Congress_of_the_Confederation) lacked taxing authority; it had to request funds from the states. Also various federalist factions wanted[Wikipedia:Citation_needed] a government that could impose uniform tariffs, give land grants, and assume responsibility for unpaid state war debts ("assumption".) Those opposed to the Constitution, known as "anti-federalists," considered these limits on government power to be necessary and good.[Wikipedia:Disputed_statement- Talk:Articles_of_Confederation]Answers.comAnother criticism of the Articles was that they did not strike the right balance between large and small states in the legislative decision making process.[Wikipedia:Disputed_statement- Talk:Articles_of_Confederation] Due to its one-state, one-vote plank, the larger states were expected to contribute more but had only one vote.

The Articles were replaced by the United_States_Constitutionon June 21, 1788.