Pros And Cons Of The Articles Of Confederation

The British monarchy’s control over the American territory had left a flavor of distrust for power in the palate of Americans. The British set the precedent for the American political system. After the colonial period, the colonies agreed that there was nothing to fear more than the government, or in this case the king. Britain over the years has held its unitary form of government, which in this case means that all governmental power resided within the hands of a single branch. In this type of system, the legislature has all the power to create and enforce legislation. This system represented for Americans a terrible thing, a political structure in which individuals were subjected to the king and had no say over policy. The thought of the

Not so long after, problems arose with the governmental system and our founding fathers gathered and started considering different ideas to improve the governmental structure. Large and small states had different suggestions on what should be done to solve the problem. Yet, two things remained clear; Americans feared the British system and wanted nothing similar to it and, the Articles of Confederation had proved inefficient due to the restricted power of the federal government. Two main plans were the reason of debate, the battle was between the federalist and the antifederalist. The powers vested on the executive were a big part of the discussion and the arguments were sustained through a series of publications called the Federalist

Constitutionally, Lincoln went beyond the powers the Constitution had vested in the presidency. The suspension of Habeas Corpus constitutes part of the powers granted to Congress by Article I, section 9. Similarly, the powers to raise and support armies are also vested within Congress. However, Lincoln’s desperate measures came in times of desperate needs. The legislative branch was in recess during this period and the executive took into his hands the power he felt necessary to deal with the civil