Why were the Articles of Confederation weak?

Answer

my, etc

The articles gave the government no separation of powers. The government was too weak, the Articles left much of the power to the states (if I remember correctly, states basically went by their own state constitution). Congress didn't have the power to tax. To change the Articles, it had to be decided unanimously by all states. Also, 9 out of the 13 states had to approve any major law before it was passed and Congress couldn't regulate commerce. There was no president to lead, no established court system, and every state had only one vote in congress. Hope that helps!

Answer

The two biggest ones were the lack of taxing authority and the lack of an executive authority. Because it could not levy taxes the congress could not raise its own money for national purposes. It could only ask the states for money and they often refused to give it. Because there was no executive the congress could not enforce whatever laws it passed. The states could, and did, ignore them if they wanted to. With that kind of weakness it was very difficult to get anything done.
-Michael Montagne

Answer

There are many reasons as to why the Articles of Confederation are weak. In truth, the whole document was weak to begin with. The fact that the states had too much power, 9 out of 13 states had to approve laws, 13 out of 13 states had to approve amendments, and that Congress had no power at all, there was no ar. all had a factor in why the Ariticles of Confederation was weak.

Answer

• central government was weakened by the Second Continental Congress = serious national and international problems
• inability to regulate and levy taxes
• states has more power and controled the gov't; did not gave the much needed money to debts from the cause of the war, basically ignored the congress
• congress can't keep the states following the Treaty of Paris, many had their own foreign negotiations
• a new nation was unable to defend its borders from British and Spanish encroachment because it could not pay for an army when the states would not contribute the necessary funds.

First answer by Jeenius man. Last edit by 10486nichole. Contributor trust: 0 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 145 [recommend question]