Federalism Vs Articles Of Confederation

The formation for the government of the United States has been a rough process packed with regulations, restrictions and expansions to serve for the good of its people. The journey started with the Articles of Confederation, which attempted to unify the largely sovereign states following the American Revolution. After the Articles failed to govern or provide for U.S. citizens, the Constitution was triumphally ratified to allow a balanced central government successfully lead the nation. The rights of citizens were increasingly protected through the Bill of Rights, new laws and future Amendments. Today, many citizens are split between several political beliefs, essentially pondering or protesting over how much power our government should possess. Some favor either extensive or moderate governmental intervention over issues that the public cannot handle on their own, while others seek …show more content…
Government submission to the sovereign states induced a plethora of negative consequences upon the nation. Citizens “lacked national identity or loyalty” not reserved for their state, states “found it difficult to agree on any policies” to settle disputes over commerce and the Congress of the Confederation proved to be an “inefficient and ineffective governance [that] led to economic woes” and rebellion (O’Connor, Sabato, and Yanus 33; “Anti-Federalist vs Federalist”). Additionally, the confederacy required an executive branch that “would be responsible of executing, or implementing, laws passed by the legislative branch,” and called for a judicial branch “to handle the growing number of economic conflicts and boundary disputes among the individual states” (O’Connor, Sabato, and Yanus 33). All this and more, could be settled by a centralized government granted in the