Pros And Cons Of The Articles Of Confederation

3876 Words 16 Pages
As our forefathers departed England to establish this new land, one of the original drivers was to allow many individual freedoms that were not allowed in England. Therefore, the U. S. Constitution was created to give the people freedoms that were not allowed in England and also to provide protections not provided for in their type of government. The tensions and conflict arose in the process of balancing the needs for individual freedoms with the need for the overall rule of law in the new nation. The difficulty is how individual rights are executed without the infringement on another person’s rights. America needed to have guidelines for all citizens to follow. Included in these individual freedoms is the right to express your views …show more content…
One of the initial answers was producing the Articles of Confederation. Although this was not considered a success, the Articles of Confederation were an attempt to balance individual freedoms with the common good. However, the attention was clearly on the common good and government. Being under the Articles of Confederation was not a time where the focus was on the individual. While the Declaration of Independence was being created, the Articles of Confederation were also being constructed and were ultimately approved in 1781. Though this was an attempt to bridge the gap, it actually created more tension by giving more rights to the states with little connection to federal authority. It was deemed that people focus their love of country by their state. The state is the sovereign power. Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation states “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” Every state is still in control of its fate. Individual states could send two to seven people to congress but each state gets one vote. There is no relationship from the federal congress to the people. We had a unitary government at the time which gave all the power to the national government. This left the people not included with implied consent that …show more content…
These groups are made up of likeminded individuals working together to change political policy without running for office. These groups include National Rifle Association, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Teacher Unions and many more. With outside lobbying, specific interest groups can try to change politics in an indirect way by paying the media, bloggers, and advertise to sway politics without talking to politicians. Inside lobbying, groups can try to change politics in a direct way by going to the politician and asking for certain demands or paying for their campaign to make sure they meet the needs they want. However the people as individuals do not have a direct vote to make sure who they want will be in political office for any branch. In Federalist 68, Publius agrees the Electoral College is necessary because the people are too prone to make mistakes. The electors that cast the votes will be better informed about government than the people so they know what the country really needs. Publius says the Electoral College provides a filter for the people. Brutus also states that the judicial branch is actually the most powerful. In the judicial branch, Brutus talks about the Supreme Court and how he is deeply concerned with the life appointments and also talks about how they are not ever elected. The people never have a say so in that matter

Related Documents