The conflict of the framing of the Constitution was a difficult time f
"Has been a lifesaver so many times!"
- Catherine Rampell, student @ University of Washington
"Exactly the help I needed."
- Jennifer Hawes, student @ San Jose State
"The best place for brainstorming ideas."
- Michael Majchrowicz, student @ University of Kentucky
The conflict of the framing of the Constitution was a difficult time for the people of the United States of America. The matters concerning the Constitution were products of two plans offered to the framers. These plans were the Virginia Plan written by James Madison and the New Jersey Plan written by William Patterson. The two plans had many provisions and both were very different.
The Virginia Plan was written on May 29, 1787. The Virginia Plan stated that in the new government there should be three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The legislative branch would be made of two houses. The lower house would be elected by the people. Each state would have representation in the house according to population. Therefore, the larger more populated states would be more powerful in the government. The upper house would be chosen by the lower house. The "National Executive and Judiciary" would be chosen by the Congress. Each state also had to vow allegiance to the Union.
All of the provisions of the Virginia Plan were good (for a populated state). The idea of three branches was a very good idea. It split the power so no one branch held more power than the other. It was also a good idea to have a bicameral legislature- again it split up the power more equally. The provision of the plan that I disagreed with was the idea of representation by population. I felt like it was very unfair and unjust for the smaller less populated states. The Virginia Plan was definitely a good starting point for the framers, but they needed a different view. They needed the view of the smaller states, that is why we also had the New Jersey Plan.
The New Jersey Plan was written on behalf of the smaller states. In it we would have a unicameral legislature, with each state equally represented in the government. They would also have federal Executive Council appointed by the Congress. A federal judiciary would be appointed by the executive council. These were all also very good ideas, which brings us to the question of which plan to approve.
In the New Jersey plan I agreed with equal representation. I do not feel that the idea of a unicameral house would work though. I know that it was a unicameral house under the Articles of Confederation, but the idea of a bicameral house was good because the power was split like I said earlier.
The Great Compromise was derived from both of the plans. They decided on a bicameral legislature, the upper house was the Senate and the lower was the House of Representatives. Senate contained representatives from each state where each state would receive an equal number of members. House of Representatives was based on population. The higher the population the more numbers of representatives each state had. This was good because the larger states had more representatives but this was the lower house. Therefore in the upper house the states such as New Jersey and Connecticut had just as much say as did the larger states like Virginia and Pennsylvania. They also had three branches of government. This split the power and it created the theories of separation of powers and Checks and Balances.
View Full Essay
Legislatures, Government, Politics, Law, United States, American Revolution, Virginia Plan, Bicameralism, New Jersey Plan, United States Constitution, Connecticut Compromise, United States House of Representatives
More Free Essays Like This