[RlUbQU3R]

In my opinion the AOC had many shortcomings when compared to the Constitution.

For example, in the AOC each of the 13 states had one vote in Congress, and no legislation could be passed without at least 9 states voting for it. This left open the possibility that legislation, while supported by representatives of the vast majority of the population would not pass if, say, New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode Island New Jersey and Georgia (roughly 12% of the US population at the time) opposed it.

The bicameral legislature created by the Constitution provided low population states with equal representation in one body, but created a second body recognizing the huge disparity in population among the states, and apportioning representation based on population.

Replacing a 2/3 requiremnt for passing legislation with a simple majority made it easier for the government to pass legislation. Some may consider this a weakness in the Constitution ("tyranny of the majority"), but the AOC had built into it a prospect of the "tyranny of the minority".

"And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

The unanimity requirement made it practically impossible to amend the AOC. It gave a "veto" power to any state despite the fact that the most populated state at the time (Virginia) represented barely 20% of the US population. A "small" state such as Delaware, with approximately 1.5% of the US population in 1780, could "veto" an amendment approved by states representing roughly 98.5% of the population.

The Constitution provides that amendments can be passed by a vote of 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of state legislatures or national convention.

So it remains difficult to amend the Constitution (as it should be), but not practically impossible.

Under the AOC Congress could ask the states to pay taxes, but had no means of enforcing the request. It had no means of raising funds for the common defense (the inability to adequately handle encroachments by foreign powers along the borders and on the Mississippi may have been one result of this). It was at the mercy of the states when it came to raising funds to pay off debts incurred during the war. It could not regulate trade among the states (leading to states imposing tarriffs on goods from other states).


Under the AOC Congress was, essentially, the legislative, executive and judicial branch (it created no courts to settle issues of law). It passed the laws, enforced the laws (as best it could), and determined legal disputes between the states.

While the unwillingness to consider a strong national government (particularly one with a strong executive) at a time when the US was in the process of attempting to get out from under a King makes sense, it wasn't practical in the long run. Nor did it make sense to not have an independent branch to address legal issues.

While my analysis is somewhat simplistic, and the Constitution certainly has it's flaws, it is far less flawed, in my opinion, than the AOC.