Short Answer: Powerless.
Because the Articles of Confederation did not give the power to the federal government to tax states, any money for any federal programs (mail system, military, road systems, bank system, etc.) have to be volunteered by the states. Also, state government had much more power than federal government according to the Articles of Confederation.
Good luck on your test
The Articles of Confederation were revised, said to be too large to take in and was unusable to salvage, and the U.S Constitution was written.
Drafted during the years 1776 and 1777, while the colonists were still fighting for independence, the Articles of Confederation created a weak national government with most of the governmental powers retained by the states. The Articles provided no separation of branches. There was no president or any other independent executive, nor was there a federal judicial branch. Congress, the legislature, was the only branch of government. Laws required unanimous votes. Members elected to congress did not vote as individuals, but as states. While congress did have some powers, it could not enforce its laws on the states or the people. States were permitted to coin their own money. There was no regulation of commerce between the states and states could even enter into treaties with foreign nations and declare war, “with the consent of Congress.” Congress could not tax the states or the people, it could only request funds to run the government.
Well, I'll just answer against, because I'm sure if you read your textbook you can find plenty of reasons for saying "yes". Main one: Articles of Confederation didn't work, so people needed another document to specify how to better rule the government. Some people believed that the A of C were working just fine, so said "no"; others feared a centralized government.
Cover upEveryone has a position and a goal in life. We must remember that in order to achieve that goal one must change their position to suit the times. This is what the founders may have done. Actually, i believe the answer is both. While everyone has a position and/or goal they are all trying to achieve, i believe that, since these people risked their lives to forge this new country, they saw that America at the time was in trouble under the articles of confederation. I also believe that they felt that while doing this would possibly help them, they also saw it as their duty to fix what they started in the first place. But yes, they never intended for power to reach the hands of average citizens. James Madison said, "those who own the country, should run it". So as i said, i believe the answer is both.
During the Revolutionary War, Roger Sherman served as a delegate to the Continental Congress where he played a key role in drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. He was also involved in the creation of the Connecticut Compromise, which helped resolve the debate between large and small states over representation in the new government. Additionally, Sherman served on various committees related to military affairs and financial matters to support the war effort.
No. One of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation was that it made no provision for a federal court system. Article III of the US Constitution, which replaced the Articles of Confederation, required that Congress establish the Supreme Court. In other words, the Constitution said the government had to have a supreme court, but didn't directly create one. It left that task to Congress.
yes, in my American history class the teacher said so.
The Articles of Confederation.
The type of government that the Articles Of Confederation created was, a federal arrangement with a strong central government.
the articles of confederation was America's first gov., that terribly failed because it said every state could print it's own money, there was no system of courts and no main leader.
A rope of sand would, of course, be utterly useless for anythinf you wanted a rope for, like tying thirteen things together but a rope (or chain) or iron would be unbreakable and would fetter something which ought to be free. Michael Montagne I think the question is asking why people said that a rope of sand (ie the Articles of Confederation) would be better than a rope of iron (ie the US under the Constitution). Many people were frightened of a strong central government, having just become independent from a monarch. Even thought the Articles of Confederation were not initially very sucessful, many people thought that a strong central government would become dictorial.
george washington
No it actually was to discuss independence from Great Britain and since they needed something to stand for, the constitution was written
The Articles of Confederation included a weak central government. It was designed to govern thousands of people in thirteen colonies. The Mayflower Compact was a much simpiler document. It was designed to govern dozens of people in one colony.
it only set up one--> the legislative branch
Yes, he did make this statement.
The Articles of Confederation were revised, said to be too large to take in and was unusable to salvage, and the U.S Constitution was written.