Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Changing America. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
The differences between the Virginia and New Jersey plans for the U.S Constitution demonstrate the conflict between large and small states at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and it is the melding of these counter plans that responds to today’s class struggles, allowing no one side to claim permanent power over the other. While the wealthy Virginia legislators offered the original concept of separation of constitutional and political powers, the New Jersey farmers sought autonomy. The consensus reached parlayed both concepts into a single plan to provide protection for people and states of all means in the final draft of the Constitution. However, reaching that consensus began with strong arguments and divisions between the large and small states concerning at least the top two branches evolved out of the Convention. 1 work cited. jvChgAmr.rtf
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_jvChgAmr.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
the melding of these counter plans that responds to todays class struggles, allowing no one side to claim permanent power over the other. While the wealthy Virginia legislators offered the
original concept of separation of constitutional and political powers, the New Jersey farmers sought autonomy. The consensus reached parlayed both concepts into a single plan to provide protection for people
and states of all means in the final draft of the Constitution. However, reaching that consensus began with strong arguments and divisions
between the large and small states concerning at least the top two branches evolved out of the Convention. The first argument is
clear. The Virginia Plan proposed two houses in the legislature, both houses based on population within the state. Under this provision, the larger states would always control both houses. The
New Jersey Plan, written by legislators representing farmers rather than plantation owners, countered based on the argument that the majority would always rule under this proposal and the smaller states
would never have a chance of succeeding in any political event. In fact, the states would not even have been able to control their own destiny because the Virginia Plan
authorized veto power over state legislation. New Jersey also argued that there was no need for two houses, which prevented the possibility
of consensus. This was clearly a problem ever since the country was founded. Under the Articles of Confederation, representatives could reach consensus on very few issues because each state had
its own agenda to serve. Interestingly enough, this complex argument led to a legislature following the parameters of both plans. The two house plan, with one being based on population
...