I have to write a comparative analysis about the AoC and Constitution, and I'm having trouble with the analysis of my different arguments. Here's my basic set up:
In terms of Congress:
~The AoC had a one house legislature where each state was given one vote. Congress had the power to wage war, make treaties, and borrow money only. It took 9/13 states to pass a law.
~The Constitution was a bicameral legislature where the HoR was dependent upon population of each state and the Senate gave one vote per state. They had the power to tax the states, regulate commerce, coin money, and declare war. 51% of Congress needed to pass a law.
Would my analysis be that the Constitution was geared towards giving more power to central government? If so, would a good supplement to this claim be the "Necessary and Proper Clause"?
In Terms of the Executive and Judicial Branch:
~The AoC did not set up an Executive or Judicial Branch, rather they gave these powers to the states.
~The Constitution established the Supreme Court which would have jurisdiction in cases where ambassadors, public officials, public consuls, or states shall be a party.
~The Constitution established that the President would ensure that laws be faithfully executed, and grant reprieves/pardons. He could also make treaties, and appoint ambassadors, Supreme Court Justices, etc. with the consent of 2/3 of Congress.
I don't even know where to begin to analyze this information. I'd like to include the system of checks and balances somewhere as well. Any advice you have would be appreciated!
i think that you've got a great start. the AoC definetly failed because they didn't have the power to tax! thats extremly important but you've got the right information you just need to compare and contrast both articles in essay form!