This is obviously a question full of sarcasm, because we all know which document survived it through to today. The Constitution. Even though both have the concept of political activeness, the Constitution holds true to all three principles of democracy. In comparing the two documents, the Constitution is what fits best with the definition of democracy. This is held to be true, because “democracy”, “constitutionalism”, and “liberalism” are characteristics that are present in the constitution. As specified recently, mainstream power is the thing that the constitution goes for subsequently the "strong central government." It is the thing that the Articles of Confederation couldn't do. Likewise, the changes in the constitution are a decent case of constitutionalism as they ensure "basic rights, interests, and welfare." in particular, flexibility, equity, and respect of the individual are available in today's constitution superior to anything it was in the Articles of Confederation, assuming any. In what capacity can this be seen? Free and fair elections—political freedom, and a procedure for the race of every single political delegate known as the Electoral College,.are visual references to fortify the popularity based encapsulation in the constitution. The fundamental ammo that makes the U.S. constitution more law based is the Bill of Rights, which indicates essential standards and practices of popular government, for example, the right to speak freely, and unalienable rights – “god given, or born with rights.” The Articles of Confederation bolstered autonomous statehood in light of the fact that the government had no energy to expense: it relied on upon gifts from the states, who tended to be parsimonious. The favorable position was that the states didn't need to stress over obstruction with their strategies. However the primary issue
This is obviously a question full of sarcasm, because we all know which document survived it through to today. The Constitution. Even though both have the concept of political activeness, the Constitution holds true to all three principles of democracy. In comparing the two documents, the Constitution is what fits best with the definition of democracy. This is held to be true, because “democracy”, “constitutionalism”, and “liberalism” are characteristics that are present in the constitution. As specified recently, mainstream power is the thing that the constitution goes for subsequently the "strong central government." It is the thing that the Articles of Confederation couldn't do. Likewise, the changes in the constitution are a decent case of constitutionalism as they ensure "basic rights, interests, and welfare." in particular, flexibility, equity, and respect of the individual are available in today's constitution superior to anything it was in the Articles of Confederation, assuming any. In what capacity can this be seen? Free and fair elections—political freedom, and a procedure for the race of every single political delegate known as the Electoral College,.are visual references to fortify the popularity based encapsulation in the constitution. The fundamental ammo that makes the U.S. constitution more law based is the Bill of Rights, which indicates essential standards and practices of popular government, for example, the right to speak freely, and unalienable rights – “god given, or born with rights.” The Articles of Confederation bolstered autonomous statehood in light of the fact that the government had no energy to expense: it relied on upon gifts from the states, who tended to be parsimonious. The favorable position was that the states didn't need to stress over obstruction with their strategies. However the primary issue