Dejah Small
Introduction to Government and Politics 1327 9:00AM
December 5th, 2016
Paper Option 2
Centralized Governments and The U.S. Constitution Throughout the course of history, there has been controversy over the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Both documents having had its issues of not having a strong enough foundation or violating the idea of a stronger national/ centralized government. First off, a central government has the authority to control an entire nation, and is sometimes referred to as a national government. The importance of a central government is so that they can have control over the states, and so that there is enough power to enforce laws among the states. A central government shows more efficiency …show more content…
Acemoglu and Robinson believed economic success developed from the government became accountable for the citizens, which is due to a central government. I feel as though these two authors take on the position of federalists under the Constitution. They saw that the states having control wasn’t the best option, especially when it came to benefiting the people. Both authors would understand that a decentralized government was causing failure to the nation. I believe they would agree with Madison and Washington very much especially on the points that the Articles of Confederation was a complete failure and that we needed a new system to follow. Both authors understand that the national government and states share sovereignty, since the Anti-federalists create this idea that the states are just run by the federal government without a say in anything that is happening. I feel as though the importance behind this is that when things get chaotic and the states try to go off and do their own thing, the federal government would take …show more content…
Although many opposed what this document stood for, I feel as though without it the nation would have been caught in a web of destruction, debt, and chaos. The Constitution saved the United States from the failure it was heading towards. With the help of Washington and Madison, as well as federalists, the federal government took control over the states, being that they had an excessive amount of power. I completely agree with Washington when he says, the states were only united by a rope of sand, because that is a perfect representation of how things were, before the creation of the United States. Being that the federal government had limited power of the states, it was only a matter of time, before that rope of sand holding the nation together fell apart and created more problems for the government to deal with. Without centralized government, it would have been like a teacher trying to run a class where there are rules, but the students could choose whether they listened, and that is exactly a point of Acemoglu and Robinson’s theory of why nations fall apart. Without centralization/ national government and Constitution to replace the articles of confederation, our nation would have fallen
Introduction to Government and Politics 1327 9:00AM
December 5th, 2016
Paper Option 2
Centralized Governments and The U.S. Constitution Throughout the course of history, there has been controversy over the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Both documents having had its issues of not having a strong enough foundation or violating the idea of a stronger national/ centralized government. First off, a central government has the authority to control an entire nation, and is sometimes referred to as a national government. The importance of a central government is so that they can have control over the states, and so that there is enough power to enforce laws among the states. A central government shows more efficiency …show more content…
Acemoglu and Robinson believed economic success developed from the government became accountable for the citizens, which is due to a central government. I feel as though these two authors take on the position of federalists under the Constitution. They saw that the states having control wasn’t the best option, especially when it came to benefiting the people. Both authors would understand that a decentralized government was causing failure to the nation. I believe they would agree with Madison and Washington very much especially on the points that the Articles of Confederation was a complete failure and that we needed a new system to follow. Both authors understand that the national government and states share sovereignty, since the Anti-federalists create this idea that the states are just run by the federal government without a say in anything that is happening. I feel as though the importance behind this is that when things get chaotic and the states try to go off and do their own thing, the federal government would take …show more content…
Although many opposed what this document stood for, I feel as though without it the nation would have been caught in a web of destruction, debt, and chaos. The Constitution saved the United States from the failure it was heading towards. With the help of Washington and Madison, as well as federalists, the federal government took control over the states, being that they had an excessive amount of power. I completely agree with Washington when he says, the states were only united by a rope of sand, because that is a perfect representation of how things were, before the creation of the United States. Being that the federal government had limited power of the states, it was only a matter of time, before that rope of sand holding the nation together fell apart and created more problems for the government to deal with. Without centralized government, it would have been like a teacher trying to run a class where there are rules, but the students could choose whether they listened, and that is exactly a point of Acemoglu and Robinson’s theory of why nations fall apart. Without centralization/ national government and Constitution to replace the articles of confederation, our nation would have fallen