Home › NY Regents US History and Government › History › The Formation of a National Government › The Convention rejected the use of force against…
The Convention rejected the use of force against the states. What did it decide instead?
AThe government would act upon the people directly
BThe states would keep a veto over federal law
CThe courts alone would settle every dispute
DThe President would command the state militias
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: A. The government would act upon the people directly
1. Under the Articles the national government had large powers on paper that came to nothing.
2. The states simply paid no attention to them, so the Convention had to find an enforcement.
3. Most delegates first answered that force should be used.
4. It was quickly seen that applying force to the states would destroy the Union.
5. The decision was that the government should not act upon the states but upon the people within them.
6. It would legislate for and upon all the individual residents of the country.
7. The laws of the United States thereby became enforceable in its own national courts and in state courts alike.
8. A state veto over federal law is the opposite of the supremacy clause the Convention adopted.
_Source: An Outline of American History (U.S. Information Agency, 1990, public domain), section PRINCIPLES ALREADY WERE WELL TRIED_
Related questions
What did the Embargo Act do to American exports within a single year?Why did Napoleon resolve to sell Louisiana to the United States?On what ground did Hamilton defend the power to create a national bank?By which two routes could an amendment to the Constitution be proposed under Article V?Which weakness of the Articles made New Jersey producers pay fees at the Hudson?How many instances of British impressment did Madison lay before Congress?What did the United States obtain in 1803 for fifteen million dollars?How was the dispute between large and small states over representation settled?