The Constitution by Mr. Bielecki

Ryan Baker

hockeysniper1919 — 2016-10-04 15:31:29 UTC

The federal government couldn't force the states to do anything they didn't want to do.
States began to print their own money which caused massive inflation.

Aidan

2016-10-04 15:31:30 UTC

-government couldn't tax
-States could make opposing tariff laws
-couldn't regulate commerce

The central government couldn't tax.

2016-10-04 15:31:34 UTC

Matt Santoro

matthewsantoro2018 — 2016-10-04 15:31:35 UTC

No strong federal government
Could not regulate foreign trade
3/5 compromise
Needed 9/12 vote to pass laws
No power to tax
No executive branch
Unicameral congress
No vote based on population so small states did not have as much influence

Luke Roberts

lukeroberts2018 — 2016-10-04 15:31:41 UTC

T- the 3/5s compromise didn't solve any problems
- little federal power with taxing and foreign affairs

Patrick Scheffey

patrickscheffey — 2016-10-04 15:31:43 UTC

no executive branch of government
states established different laws regarding tariffs and navigation

Tyler Liu

tylerliu2018 — 2016-10-04 15:31:47 UTC

Congress have no power on foreign trade and power on tax-collection. it cannot commend or coerce the individual states. Therefore, the state can have opposing law and tariff against others.

No power to regulate commerce, stepping stone to Constitution.

desmondyoung2018 — 2016-10-04 15:31:48 UTC

Desmond Young

Jake Zenak

jakezenak2018 — 2016-10-04 15:31:53 UTC

3/5s compromise changed view of slaves throughout all the colonies

Gus Alexanian

gustavoalexanian2018 — 2016-10-04 15:32:14 UTC

No ability to tax

Dan Kuznetsov

2016-10-04 15:32:17 UTC

Their was no power to tax, and the federal government had no power. No provisions were established to form an executive branch.

Jacob Mittman

2016-10-04 15:32:25 UTC

-3/5s Compromise
-No ability to tax
- Congress lacked power
- No Executive Branch

Tim Fitzpatrick

2016-10-04 15:32:34 UTC

Government couldn't enforce laws through executive branch.
No national judicial system,

Tyler Shorten

tylershorten2018 — 2016-10-04 15:32:36 UTC

Executive Branch was not firmly established and the Legislative Branch did not have a lot of power. This caused states to have conflicting and different laws and regulation

The federal government couldn't regulate trade.

2016-10-04 15:33:01 UTC

Gus Alexanian

gustavoalexanian2018 — 2016-10-04 15:33:07 UTC

Federal government had no power over the states

Kyle Wernly

kylewernly2018 — 2016-10-04 15:33:15 UTC

There wasn't an executive branch and the judicial branch was left exclusively to the states.

Micheal Fabrizio

michaelfabrizio2018 — 2016-10-04 15:33:16 UTC

- Congress had no power to regulate commerce, nor enforce taxes
- All bills dealing with subjects of importance required the support of nine states

Christian Calabretta

christiancalabretta2018 — 2016-10-04 15:33:39 UTC

The government did not have the power to enforce their laws and taxes.
There was no central leadership

alistervirkler2018 — 2016-10-04 15:33:59 UTC

not even voting rights

any amendment of the Articles themselves required unanimous ratification

alistervirkler2018 — 2016-10-04 15:35:22 UTC

Jake Zenak

jakezenak2018 — 2016-10-04 15:35:42 UTC

Letting the colonies do their own thing allowed for conflicts of neighboring states
Colonies couldn't stop rebelling

Jacob W

jacobweyand2018 — 2016-10-04 15:35:45 UTC

Similar to today's Senate, states only had one vote in Congress, so states' populations were completely disregarded. Congress was also not capable of controlling what states did, especially in terms of taxation.

no power to regulate commerce, and this loophole left the states free to establish different, and often conflicting, laws regarding tariffs and navigation

alistervirkler2018 — 2016-10-04 15:37:16 UTC

Michael Reilly

michaelreilly2018 — 2016-10-04 15:39:13 UTC

-Lack of central leadership
-Economic disorganization
-No ability to tax