Which framework did some opponents want to keep instead of adopting the new Constitution?

Which framework did some opponents want to keep instead of adopting the new Constitution?

• A. Articles of Confederation
• B. The Bill of Rights
• C. The Constitution
• D. The Northwest Ordinance

Answer: (A)

The question tests understanding of the debate over how much power the national government should have after the United States declared independence. Some opponents argued that a strong central government could threaten liberty and state authority, so they preferred to keep the existing framework of government—the Articles of Confederation—which tied the states together in a loose alliance and gave the national government only limited powers. The Articles created a weak central authority: Congress lacked the power to tax, regulate interstate commerce, or enforce laws, and any major change often required broad consent from states. Those worried about centralized power believed the Articles protected state sovereignty and personal freedoms better than replacing them with a new, stronger federal framework. When the push for a new Constitution emerged, these critics still favored retaining the Articles or making limited amendments to fix its flaws rather than discarding it entirely. The Northwest Ordinance, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution itself are not what they wanted to keep as a framework at that moment—each relates to different aspects of governance or a different stage in the founding era.

The question tests understanding of the debate over how much power the national government should have after the United States declared independence. Some opponents argued that a strong central government could threaten liberty and state authority, so they preferred to keep the existing framework of government—the Articles of Confederation—which tied the states together in a loose alliance and gave the national government only limited powers. The Articles created a weak central authority: Congress lacked the power to tax, regulate interstate commerce, or enforce laws, and any major change often required broad consent from states. Those worried about centralized power believed the Articles protected state sovereignty and personal freedoms better than replacing them with a new, stronger federal framework. When the push for a new Constitution emerged, these critics still favored retaining the Articles or making limited amendments to fix its flaws rather than discarding it entirely. The Northwest Ordinance, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution itself are not what they wanted to keep as a framework at that moment—each relates to different aspects of governance or a different stage in the founding era.