the founders of the united states made the articles of confederation weak on purpose why did they do this?
535047
to confuse people like yourself
955295
This amendment was added as a specific response to the Anti-Federalists (Madison, Jay and Hamilton) who were arguing that they were afraid if a specific right wasn't written into the Constitution the government could infringe on it. It was designed as a catchall to ensure that just because a specific right wasn't spelled out in black and white the government would not be allowed to simply trample it. This, by far and away, was the most important aspect of ensuring that the document that framed the fledgling US government was one that decided what the GOVERNMENT could and could not do rather than a basis for what the PEOPLE could and could not do.
866146
Here are some facts: \n\nThe Constitution is the document that creates the federal government.  \n\nThe people that wrote it did so in their capacity as representatives of the states, not as representatives of the people. \n\nThe Constitution as written places no obligations or limits on individuals other than minimum age to serve in elected federal offices. \n\nThe two houses of the Congress were created to give the people control of one, the House of Representatives, and the other was for the states, the Senators. \n\nInference: \n\nThe 17th Amendment took away the representation of the states in the federal government they created. \n\nObservation: \n\nThis is why the federal government has gotten totally out of control. \n\nConclusion:\n\nIt needs to be repealed.
556198
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It created a federal union of sovereign states, and a federal government to operate that union. It replaced the less well-defined union that existed under the Articles of Confederation.\n\nDuring the Revolutionary War, the thirteen states first formed a very weak central government—with the Congress being its only component—under the Articles of Confederation. Congress lacked any power to impose taxes, and, because there was no national executive or judiciary, it relied on state authorities, who were often uncooperative, to enforce all its acts. It also had no authority to override tax laws and tariffs between states. The Articles required unanimous consent from all the states before they could be amended and states took the central government so lightly that their representatives were often absent. For lack of a quorum, Congress was frequently blocked from making even moderate changes.
733198
A personal note to the Founding Fathers: We're sorry. We blew it. You made it possible for us to live free and we blew it. We've given up nearly every personal liberty in the name of a false sense of security sold to the masses by the same type of maniacal government about which you warned us and against which you fought so bravely.  We never deserved you.\n\nThe Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.
811735
Because at the time, it seemed to make the most sense to everyone.  Some people agreed and others disagreed on some aspects of it but it appeased the majority of people in each state.  Off the top of my head that is what I can come up with at the time.    Dude I answered like two of your history questions.    Do you need things for a history class by the way??  Go to constituioncenter.org if you need more info on the constitution.  Hope that helps!!
1169260
Believe it or not, that was actually considered during the framing of the U.S. Constitution. Following the demise of the Articles of Confederation for having too weak of a central federal government, there was alot of argument that took place on this subject. Most notably, The Federalist Papers argued for this setup. The decision was made, I think wisely, that it was in the best interest of the US to have a strong central figure. The president should be the representative of the people an speak for the people. If you have two presidents, that authority is necessarily diminished.
502003
The Founders did not want factions (political parties) because they fear what has occurred.  They would rather have had States work for their own best interests and workout their differences and compromise at the federal level. \n\nOf course, the factions evolved early on, with each developing its supportive base across State boundaries.  This approach took local issues and spread them across multiple States which is exactly what the Founders didn’t want to happen.
492312
The Founders knew that an educated people was key to maintaining a viable government supported by people who understood the countries roots.  Clearly that is Something which has diminished during the last 50 or so years.  \n\nUnderstanding the Constitution is not difficult, in truth it is a rather short document written in easy to understand English.  Its historical roots are in about 3,000 years of Common Law evolution.  While the Constitution does not bar recognizing the importance of religion in the lives of the people, it does bar the government from supporting “a” religion.  Religion is of the people and law is the government.\n\nTo the Founders, the soul of America is not in the government and not in religion rather it is in the individual freedoms and sovereignty of the people and is exemplified in the Constitution of the United States inclusive of the Constitutionally ratified Amendments.  This is meaningful to the degree that the people are educated to understand them.  In every school, every child should be taught the Constitution of the United States and those acts and documents which preceded and supported them.  This includes a number of documents such as the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the first thirteen Constitutions (of the original States) preceding the Constitution.  \n\nWith this minimal education of what our country is, people will come to understand what that foundation is and on their own will redevelop the “soul of the country.”
10183
When the US first separated from England after the Revolution, the people were wary of strong, centralized government (because of their experiences under the English king).\n\nThey first formed a loose fedaration of separately-governed states.  It proved too 'loose' to be effective, so the states re-organized under the current US constitution - which gave more power to the Federal government, but still left some control with states.\n\nSince then, balancing state & federal powers has been a near-constant issue.
500685
First president of the USA was John Hanson.\n\nThe Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one-year term during any three-year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time. He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation – and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was strongly opposed to the Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death.\n\nSix other presidents were elected after him - Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) - all prior to Washington taking office. Why don't we ever hear about the first seven Presidents of the United States? It's quite simple - The Articles of Confederation didn't work well. The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon. A new doctrine needed to be written - something we know as the Constitution. \n\nGeorge Washington was definitely not the first President of the United States. He was the first President of the United States under the Constitution we follow today. And the first seven Presidents are forgotten in history.
210357
Because of the way the US evolved as a nation. When you look at the US during the revolutionary War, they were more a group of 13 small nations fighting for a common cause than one nation. Under the Articles of Confederation, they needed a law passed by 9 of the 13 to be in force. The states had just fought a war to get rid of one large government, they didn't want another one.\n\nBut they saw they needed to get things done, so the Constitution of the United States was passed by the states which was a compromise. In the Constitution, some powers are reserved for the federal government, and some for the states. \n\nThe United States is a big nation- some things are better done locally. If you have an issue with the education your child is getting, do you want to have to go through the US government to get a definitive answer ? A local school board would be better.\n\nAnd also because the US is so large and values vary from state to state, it's beter to have some laws at the local level than at the national level. Take for instance, the death penalty. Most people in New England are against (or at least not strongly in favor of) the death penalty. In the south, capital punishment is almost universally approved. So the people in New England and the South can both have what they want in their laws without interference from the Federal government.\n\nSometimes (and some would argue usually) democracy works best locally. Foreign affairs, imports, defense, security- those are things better left to the federal government.
921773
They were all democratic to a degree.  It IS a republic.  They tried to govern themselves and discovered that in the bigger picture, there was little to no unity.  Each state had its own currency, trade between states became a nightmare.  The Articles of Confederation prooved itself to be too flawed.  I like to think of it as Swiss Cheese...
906727
here's what I just found as part of my history notes.  it's why the Anti-Federalists didn't want the constitution.  to answer the second part of your question though, I know that the Federalists appeased the anti-federalists with a bill of rights to make them support the constitution.  so here's, from my US history notes, why the Anti-Federalists were opposed to the constitution in the first place, sorry for the shorthand:\n\n"-said that the Constitution should have been made in public meetings instead of private things between a few elite ppl: therefore it wouldn’t reflect the wants of the people\n-said the new const gave too much power to national gov; took away powers of state govs\n-congress itself, according to const, would be given too much power to make laws\n-separation of powers between executive and legislative wasn’t very good\n-const allowed a standing army, which scared the antifeds\n-no bill of rights; const did not give any rights to the ppl, so gov could take them away whenever they wanted; antifeds wanted a const to specifically give unabridgeable rights\n-anti-feds wanted it to be more democratic and direct to the ppl"
651380
the southern Representatives felt that the north Representatives were interfering with the southern rights. in the constitution there was a rule saying, if necessary, the American people have an obligation to their country to overthrow the government if it becomes corrupt (betcha that's the first law to go if the gov does become corrupt).  instead of a coup, the southerners said "screw you guys, we quit" and the northerners said "you cant quit" and then the rest was history.
820840
Look here:\nhttp://search.yahoo.com/search?search=strengths+and+weaknesses+of+articles+of+confederation&ei=UTF-8&fr=ks-ques&ico-yahoo-search-value=http%3A%2F%2Frds.yahoo.com%2F_ylt%3DArWKri693.sbLKrdpQhcW9UezKIX%2FSIG%3D111gjvvgj%2F*-http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch&ico-wikipedia-search-value=http%3A%2F%2Frds.yahoo.com%2F_ylt%3DAthfLqOk2IQaHRFFJ98MQ8cezKIX%2FSIG%3D11ia1qo58%2F**http%253a%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpecial%253aSearch&p=strengths+and+weaknesses+of+articles+of+confederation
1140440
Many of the answers listed here are incorrect.  Jefferson was the ambassador to France at the time and was living in Paris.  It would have been interesting to see how the constitution would have come out if he had been involved.  \n\nHe was very influencial at the time.  If it had been publicly known that they were going to completely redesign the government he might have been involved.  At the time it was expected that they would just "fix" the articles of confederation.\n\nJefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence, and important document but not one with any actual legal weight.\n\nHope this helps.