Should We Amend The Articles Of Confederation Or Ratify The Constitution?

Ratifying Constitution “Should we amend the Articles of confederation or ratify the Constitution?”the men is the 2nd continental congress thought. At this time in America colonial leaders were seeing gigantic problems in the Articles of Confederation, so some wanted to change it, while others wanted to create a whole new government. They need to ratify the Constitution, because the Articles of Confederation had too weak of a central government, checks and balances kept power equal through the 3 branches of government, and 2 houses of representatives,one based on state's population and the other had equal representatives from each state making it fair.
The Articles of Confederation had too weak of a central government. An example would be Shay’s Rebellion, a group of farmers attacked and shut down the courts, but the Articles didn’t allow them to get an army to

The House of Representatives had representatives from each state based on that state’s population. The Senate has equal amount of representatives from each state. This made it fair for all states in decisions. In our unit 5.3 packet, it explains how under the New Jersey Plan there would be one house, with equal amounts of representatives from each state not making it fair for bigger states. It also describes the Virginia Plan, and how there were 2 houses, both based on states population, not making it fair for smaller states.
We needed to ratify the constitution. It was important because the Articles of Confederation had a weak central government, checks and balances gave equal power to the 3 branches of government, and having 2 houses of representatives, one based on state's population and the other had all equal representatives making it fair. The Constitution is important because we still use the same original laws on it now including checks and balances and the 2 houses of