President of the United States

Compare the strengths and weaknesses of the Articles of confederation to those of the Constitution. Which document did a better job at protecting liberties? Running a government? Explain your answer with specific examples. The Article of Confederation was the building block that created our Constitution. It was prefect as well a lot of things our government creates. In addition here are differences between the two documents. “When it came to levying taxes the Articles stated Congress could request states to pay taxes.

The Constitution states Congress has the right to levy taxes on individuals” (Feldmeth, Greg D. "U. S. History Resources" http://home. earthlink. net/~gfeldmeth/USHistory. html (31 March 1998). “A federal court the Articles states no system of federal courts. With the Constitution a court system created to deal with issues between citizens and states. ”(Feldmeth, Greg D. "U. S. History Resources" http://home. earthlink. net/~gfeldmeth/USHistory. html (31 March 1998). With regulation of trade, the Articles states no terms to regulate interstate trade.

The Constitution states Congress has the authority to control trade between states. When it come to the executive branch the Articles states no executive has power, the president just presides over the Congress. According to the Constitution, the executive branch leaded by the president who chooses the Cabinet and has checks on the powers of the other branches. For amending documents, the Articles stated 13/13 of the colonies were needed to pass Articles. Whereas for the Constitution, 2/3 of both houses of Congress plus ? of the states or national convention.

Representation of states for the Articles stated each state had 1 vote no matter what size the states were. In the Constitution, Senate has two votes and the House is based on the population of the state. When raising an army the Article states congress could not draft citizens, it was if the states wanted to help. In the Constitution, Congress can create an army. In the Article, they had no control over state trade. Now in the Constitution, state trade is controlled by Congress. If an issue raises between states Articles states to use the system of negotiation.

Now the federal court deals with state to state issues. With passing laws before the Constitution, the Articles wanted 9/13 to pass any law. After it states 50%+1 of both of the houses plus the president needs to sign it. Also in the Articles term limit for legislative office is no more than three out of every six years. In the constitution there isn’t a term limit. The Chair of legislature is the president according to the Articles but in the constitution, the speaker of the House of Representatives, Vice President of the Senate.

The Constitution is a better document that protected the liberties of the citizens of America. The reason is that after review of the Articles we see a lot of issues with how they tried not to be like the British parliament but needed up similar to how they manage their government. Also other reasons it wasn’t a strong document was because it seem like an inexperience on certain subject as for example the Articles had no executive branch but in the constitution now there is an executive branch. The major reason I see that the constitution was good for the liberties were because of the check and balance proposal.

Running a government, the constitution is a stronger document that hits every issue including liberties for citizens. For example, dispute between states; they issued that problem to Congress according to the Articles. In the constitution, the Supreme Court handled this issue currently. Work Cited Page 1. Feldmeth, Greg D. "U. S. History Resources" http://home. earthlink. net/~gfeldmeth/USHistory. html (31 March 1998). 2. http://www. usconstitution. net/constconart. html “Comparing the Articles and the Constiution”.