Unit IV Scholarly Activity Constitution Comparison Worksheet

Unit Ivscholarly Activity Constitution Comparison Worksheetpage 1 Fi

Compare the Articles of Confederation and Constitution by filling out the blanks below. The comparison should include details about ratification year, legislative structure, judicial system, trade policies, passing laws, tax laws, military control, currency issuance, and amendments requirements. Additionally, fill out the missing words from the Bill of Rights concerning freedoms, rights, and legal protections. Lastly, compare and contrast the philosophies of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, including how their views reflected the society of their time.

Paper For Above instruction

The formation of the United States government was marked by the initial adoption of the Articles of Confederation in 1781, which served as the first constitutional framework for the new nation. Ratified in 1788, the Articles established a unicameral legislature where each state had one vote, emphasizing state sovereignty and limiting federal power. The legislature under the Articles was characterized by its legislative process that required a consensus or agreement among states, but it lacked a separate judicial branch, relying solely on state courts to resolve legal disputes. This structure hindered the federal government’s ability to enforce laws and address national issues effectively.

The Constitution, ratified in 1788, introduced a bicameral legislature consisting of a Senate—where each state has two votes—and a House of Representatives—which allocates votes proportionally according to population. This structure aimed to balance power between large and small states. The Constitution established a separate judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, to interpret laws and resolve constitutional disputes, thus strengthening the federal judiciary. It also created a stronger executive branch headed by the President, who presided over Congress at times, especially in negotiations and diplomatic functions.

Trade policies under the Articles of Confederation were primarily controlled by individual states, leading to inconsistent regulations and economic disunity. Conversely, the Constitution vested the power to regulate trade and commerce in the federal government, promoting a unified economic policy. Passing laws under the Articles often required the consensus of nine states, which proved difficult, whereas the Constitution requires a congressional majority and the signature of the President to enact legislation. This process meant a more efficient law-making system that balanced state and federal interests.

Tax laws under the Articles were unenforceable because the federal government could not impose taxes directly; it relied on states voluntarily contributing funds. Under the Constitution, Congress was granted the authority to lay and collect taxes, providing the federal government with a more reliable revenue stream. Control of the military also shifted from the states to the federal government in the Constitution, establishing a standing army and ensuring national security. Regarding currency, the Articles permitted states to issue their own money, leading to economic chaos, whereas the Constitution assigned the power to coin money to the federal government, creating a unified national currency.

The amendments process in the Articles of Confederation required the unanimous consent of all thirteen states, making systemic changes nearly impossible. In contrast, the Constitution requires the approval of two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states to amend, allowing for more flexibility and adaptability over time.

Bill of Rights Completion

Amendment 1: rights to freedoms of speech and press; right to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Amendment 2: right to keep and bear arms to maintain a well-regulated militia.

Amendment 3: right not to house soldiers during time of war.

Amendment 4: right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Amendment 5: rights in criminal cases, including to due process and indictment by grand jury for capital crimes, as well as the right not to testify against oneself.

Amendment 6: right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury.

Amendment 7: right to a trial in civil cases.

Amendment 8: right not to face excessive bail or fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.

Amendment 9: rights retained by the people, even if they are not specifically listed by the Constitution.

Amendment 10: States’ powers to powers not specifically delegated to the federal government.

Contrast of Federalist and Anti-Federalist Philosophies

The debates during the late 1780s surrounding the ratification of the U.S. Constitution centered around two opposing philosophies: Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists advocated for a powerful central government that could effectively manage the collective interests of the states, regulate commerce, provide national security, and sustain economic stability. They believed a strong federal authority was essential to create a unified nation capable of standing against foreign threats and maintaining order within, aligning with the need for a more centralized government after the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Leaders like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay championed these ideas, emphasizing the necessity of a durable federal constitution that could adapt to future challenges (Elkins & McKitrick, 1993).

In contrast, Anti-Federalists feared that a strong central government would threaten individual liberties and states’ rights. They were concerned that the new Constitution lacked sufficient protections for individual freedoms and could become oppressive, similar to the British monarchy they had fought against. Leaders like Patrick Henry and George Mason argued for a Bill of Rights to safeguard personal freedoms from potential government overreach. Their advocacy reflected the society's collective memory of colonial struggles for liberty and suspicion toward concentrated power, especially among agrarian and less-populated states wary of losing local control (Bailyn, 1992).

The philosophies of Federalists reflected the societal shift toward a more commercial and connected nation, acknowledging the need for a stronger federal apparatus to promote economic growth, unity, and security. Conversely, Anti-Federalists drew support from rural agrarian communities, emphasizing personal freedoms, local governance, and fear of tyranny. The discourse between both parties underscored the tension between order and liberty, a fundamental debate rooted in the societal and political fabric of post-Revolutionary America. Ultimately, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights addressed Anti-Federalist concerns, fostering broader acceptance of the Constitution and laying the foundation for American civil liberties (Wood, 1992; Rakove, 1996).

References

• Bailyn, B. (1992). The ideology of the American Revolution. Harvard University Press.
• Elkins, S. N., & McKitrick, E. (1993). The Age of Federalism. Oxford University Press.
• Rakove, J. N. (1996). Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. Knopf.
• Wood, G. S. (1992). The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage Books.
• Beard, C. A. (1913). An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. The Macmillan Company.
• Farrand, M. (1937). The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Yale University Press.
• Bernstein, R. J. (1987). The Readjustment of American Political Thought. Princeton University Press.
• Bailyn, B. (1967). The Origins of American Politics. Vintage Books.
• Adler, S. M. (1994). The American Revolution: A History. Random House.
• Gordon, M. (1994). The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787. University of North Carolina Press.