The Articles of Confederation formed a state republic system which most power was in the legislative branch of each state. This system allowed majority factions, farmers and debtors, to gain political power and with this power they could pass laws to rid them of their debt. For instance, farmers who owed money to the minority factions, creditors and rich statesmen, could pass laws to pay debt in various ways instead of paying up front. The new government system the Federalist created would rid this problem with divided branches and various ways to gain a seat. The Legislative Branch would be divided into two chambers, one representing the people and one representing the elites. The upper chamber, Senate, would be elites appointed by each state while the lower chamber, House of Representatives, would be democratically elected to represent the majorities directly.

Article 1, Section 1 "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a...a Senate and House of Representatives."

Article 1, Section 2 "The House of Representatives shall be composed...requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

An example of this would be during the revolution, For every dollar of money needed for the Continental army, The states only gave 37 cents. This continued into the Articles government. A federal government that is underpaid and a the whim of the states.l

Taxing power is the very reason we broke from Great Britain and you suggest we replace it with an exact replica in our Confederation? Our current taxing system won us a war against the largest military force in the world. How can ultimate power rest in the hands of the people when the very people are being suppressed by debt and taxes. As Brutus puts in "Without money they cannot be supported and they[the states] will dwindle away, and as before observed, their powers absorbed in that of the general government. "(P.310) These new tax powers of the central government will bankrupt the states and leave no room for support nor opposition to an unjust government.

You Would say, oh yes i feel very reassured. You say that it wont be liberty demeaning but instead liberty protecting, but how can you possibly guarantee what your fellow and future representation and legislatures will choose to do, they will use this power to abuse the majority and assume even more power, and it will be in their power to do so because we told them it was. The articles keeps said powers away from the government and where it belongs, it just needs to be better regulated.

The Constitution was an addition to what, now? "a very similar mindset in regards to matters like this" What matters, exactly?

The Constitution doesn't state anything of individual rights. If the Constitution is to be ratified the Bill of Rights should stand to account for the rights of the people, without it the central government would have too much power and we would be at risk of having our rights oppressed. This new centralized government is too similar of the government that we fought so hardly to remove ourselves from, we must protect our personal liberties.

The Constitution is in no way linked to the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is, at its core, a limitation of citizens rights for a consolidation of government to potentially bluster the nation. In this frame, the very citizens that are being censored absolutely need protection or a buffer against a more powerful government. The Bill of Rights enumerates very specific terms in order for the "necessary and proper" clauses of government to be unable to trample the basis of human rights. Without the inclusion of a Bill of Rights this Constitution looks and reads more like monarchy than it already is.

But how can a constitutional document be considered a fine addition to the declaration of independence when it is a philosophical document itself. If anything a bill of rights WOULD be a fine addition. Yes if far too much power ever fell into government hands it would mean very little, but isn't that supposed to be what your perfect new system fixes if it does what you claim. There needs to be a system in place to ensure that the rights listed would be taken seriously and be the guidelines for future constitutional and morally just topics based on the listed, it would act as a guideline explicitly stating what powers and rights are guaranteed to the states and people, as compared to the government so there will never be future confusion, debate, or manipulation of them unless necessary to make changes or additions.

You are confusing the clause with the branch and the office within it that can act quickly, especially militarily.

And what of the vast majority of time that our nation is at peace? A dictator or faction strong arms the majority into subservience because it is "Necessary and Proper" to the safety of the country? Moreover, even in the case of needed immediate action cannot we trust in our own people? If England or Spain invaded tomorrow, I am sure our delegates would unanimously agree on swift action. This vague stating of powers can only lead to disaster, or worse, monarchy. As Brutus puts it "... the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their control over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty."

That wasn't very reassuring, "if it is constitutional", but who decides what is and isn't morally just and constitutional, what if they choose to use it to pass laws that take away our liberty's, what if they feel that is necessary and proper. These powers need to be enumerated and then decided if they are too much, that is far too much ill explicitly stated power.

In the Articles of Confederation, a unitary system of government consisting of a single house legislature which represented each

THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE ARTS OF CONF WERE. CORRECT THIS!

The government set up by the Articles relied to heavily on a democratically elected state legislature. People could become democratically elected and pass certain legislature to benefit factions, special interest groups. There were no other branches to check how much the power legislature branch held. The Federalist plan was to setup 3 branches that could check the powers of each branch. The main one the Anti-Feds were fearful of was the Executive Branch which would consist of a President and cabinet members. The President was the Commander in Chief which gave them the power to control all branches of the military. The new government needed a branch who could act quick and not rely on the slow moving legislature to pass bills. The Articles relied to heavily on a legislative branch who acted to slowly to get anything done.

States are not responsible for passing federal laws. By their definition, federal laws are passed by the federal, that is national, legislature which is now in Washington D.C.