Changes

While most delegates agreed that stronger central government was necessary, they were uncertain how they could accomplish this without too much power.  Their fear of the corruption that power brings reflects the Christian beginnings of our nation.  Christianity teaches that humans are sinful and prone to corruption.  Very few other religions teach that.

While most delegates agreed that stronger central government was necessary, they were uncertain how they could accomplish this without too much power.  Their fear of the corruption that power brings reflects the Christian beginnings of our nation.  Christianity teaches that humans are sinful and prone to corruption.  Very few other religions teach that.

As the Constitutional Convention began, the delegates agreed that the Articles of Confederation had not created a functional government.  Congress was in shambles, and so sporadically attended that between October 1785 and April 1786, it had the minimum attendance to business on only three days.  The stated purpose of the Constitutional Convention was to "render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union."

As the Constitutional Convention began, the delegates agreed that the Articles of Confederation had not created a functional government.  Congress was in shambles, and attendance in Congress was so sporadic that between October 1785 and April 1786 it had the minimum attendance required to business (a "[[quorum]]") on only three days.  The stated purpose of the Constitutional Convention was to "render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union."

Those words left the Convention somewhat open in terms of purpose.  Delegates had a choice.  First, they could amend the articles, this would be difficult however because unanimous approval from the states was required.  Instead, they could draft a new constitution.  Some questioned whether the Convention had authority to do this, but consensus was that a new constitution was the only choice.

Those words left the Convention somewhat open in terms of its goal.  Delegates had a choice.  First, they could amend the Articles, but this would be very difficult because unanimous approval from the states was required.  Instead, they could draft a new constitution.  Some questioned whether the Convention had authority to do this, but consensus was that a new constitution was the only choice.

Thus, the attendees did not limit their actions to fixing the Articles of Confederation.  This same debate rages today by calls for a constitutional convention to balance the budget (1980s) or, more recently, to protect traditional marriage.  There is no way to limit what a constitutional convention does. The only protection for the people is that the document still must be ratified by the states.  This debate over whether a constitutional convention can be called for limited issue continues today, with many saying that there is never a way to limit a constitutional convention.

The attendees thereby did not limit their actions to fixing the Articles of Confederation.  This same debate rages today by calls for a constitutional convention to balance the budget (1980s) or, more recently, to protect traditional marriage.  There is no way to limit what a constitutional convention does.  This debate over whether a constitutional convention can be called for limited issue continues today, with many saying that there is never a way to limit a constitutional convention.  The only real protection for such convention is that its proposal must still be ratified by the states.

Dangers aside, the delegates knew that it was their task to write a new constitution.  But what form of government would be sufficiently effective without being corrupted by power?  Two plans attempted to answer this question.

Dangers aside, the delegates proceeded to write a new constitution.  They divided themselves into various committees to make the overall task more manageable.  But what form of government would be sufficiently effective without being corrupted by power?  Two plans attempted to answer this question.

The first was submitted by [[Edmund Randolph]] and was called the [[Virginia Plan]], or the Large States Plan because it was favored by the larger states.  Our three branches of government originated in the Virginia Plan.  Unlike the Articles of Confederation, this plan gave government the power to directly enforce laws.  The Virginia Plan assigned delegates to both houses of Congress (a "bicameral" legislature) based on a state's population, and the legislature selected the chief executive (president) and the judges.  The Virginia Plan contributed much to the finished Constitution, although Edmund Randolph refused to sign it in the end.

The first was submitted by [[Edmund Randolph]] and was called the [[Virginia Plan]], or the Large States Plan because it was favored by the larger states.  Our three branches of government originated in the Virginia Plan.  Unlike the Articles of Confederation, this plan gave government the power to directly enforce laws.  The Virginia Plan assigned delegates to both houses of Congress (a "bicameral" legislature) based on a state's population, and the legislature selected the chief executive (president) and the judges.  The Virginia Plan contributed much to the finished Constitution, although Edmund Randolph refused to sign it in the end.