[NJ_gent]

"100% wrong. The Articles of Confederation had a very weak central government in which states could print money and impose tariffs on other states' goods. The Constitution was made to strengthen the then weak central governmnet. This is an undisputable fact that cannot be argued."

That's absurd. The government created under the Articles of Confederation was so insanely weak that it had essentially no authority whatsoever. It existed at the whim of the states and could be punished and controlled by any single state wishing to do so. As such, it was a recipe for disaster, in that you had beurocrats and politicians sitting in it spending all their waking hours doing nothing but appeasing those who would seek to control that government for their own ends. The AoC was a kneejerk reaction to having just left a centralized totalitarian authority. The Constitution was a workable and functional version of the AoC which gave the Federal government limited but independent life while going nowhere near (in theory) the authoritarianist central government of the Crown. To believe that the Founders wanted to trade one authoritatian regime for another is just plain crazy. The same people who created the AoC created the government under the Constitution; they just went about it a bit more realistically the second time around.

[sangrila]

"The government created under the Articles of Confederation was so insanely weak that it had essentially no authority whatsoever. It existed at the whim of the states and could be punished and controlled by any single state wishing to do so."


How is anything you wrote different from what I posted? Are you responding to the wrong post? It makes no sense.