Immediately after the Revolutionary War, many delegates believed The Articles of Confederation failed because it left most of the power to the state governments and did not give Congress a sufficient amount of power. They needed a new-strong national government, but one that wouldn’t form a tyranny. In the late 1780’s, delegates met in Philadelphia to create something that would later win the popular vote: the United States Constitution. It wasn’t easy trying to get the Constitution to be ratified, in fact this would cause the delegates to form two different sides: those for the constitution and those against it. The Articles of Confederation gave Congress the power to sign treaties, but this did not include the President because under these articles there was no president.
After examining the Articles of Confederation and finding its many weaknesses the delegates…show more content… That’s an analysis that cannot be answered because the legislative branch should not have power of treaties. The public wanted the popular assembly, preferably the House, to have the power of creating treaties, but they didn’t take into consideration these members had a position that required them to constantly come and go. This wouldn’t give them enough time to be “steadily contemplated in all their relations and circumstances”. They needed enough time to fully understand the nation’s problem, whether it’s dealing with war or just peace. The president and the Senate has a position that allows them to “extend their political information and render their accumulating experience more and more beneficial to the country.” It was said best, “periodically transferring those great affairs entirely to new men; for by leaving a considerable residue of old ones in place, uniformity and order, as well as a constant succession of official information will be preserved.” They will make the decisions that are best for the nation and the
