In drafting the constitution various powerful negations took place to help the prosperous government in making a decision. It was difficult to ascertain whether the government was going to gave legislature that depended on population or each state should be given equal representation. Similarly, it was hard to decide whether the legislature should have two houses or one. This brought about several options and decision, which was hard for the body. The convention evaluated the New Jersey plan and the Virginia plan, and ended up with the Great compromise. Therefore, the paper will compare and contrast the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan.
The Virginia plan was proposed by the Edmund Randolph on the May 29, 1787, but it was written mainly by James Madison (Gershman 9). Virginia plan was a proposal also referred to as large state plan, which empowered three separate branches of government that comprised of a legislature with membership relative to population. The Virginia plan proposed the wide outlines of what was supposed to become the U.S constitution, where the national government could include three branches with checks and balances to curtail the abuse of power. The plan proposed legislature to have two houses, with membership in each house relative to each state’s population. The people would elect members of the house, and these members could select members of the second house.
Meanwhile, the legislature would have the power to select a chief executive and the members of the judiciary. The authority was supposed to legislate in the cases to which the states are incompetent and when the harmony of the united states demands the legislation. The plan proposed in the legislature would have right to reject a decision of any state law. Under this plan, the only real check on the legislature would be a council of revision, comprising of the executive and many members of the judiciary, which could veto the constitutional acts (Gershman 12).
In order to challenge the Virginia plan , delegates from less populated state proposed the New Jersey plan. The plan called for a one-house legislature in which each state despite the size would have equal representation. Thus, the Jersey plan was a proposal also referred to as the small states, which would have retained the article of confederation principle of a legislature where states enjoyed equal representation. The New Jersey was written by the William Patterson and his ideas was to reshape the articles of confederation. Just like Virginia plan, the New Jersey plan advocated for three branches of government. However, in the Jersey plan it would have unicameral called one house in the legislative branch. The plan had great significance to the small states because they would be represented equally and state would have equal power.
Both plans rejected a model of government in which the executive would be given more power. Although both plans advocated for intensive authority, Virginia plan called for all representatives and senators to be apportioned by population, whereas Jersey plan called for equal representation among the states. Whereas the Jersey plan advocated for several representations among states, Virginia plan called for a single executive to be selected by the legislature. The smaller states were willing to give greater powers to congress, and Jersey resolution called for vesting Congress with power to impose taxes on imports, and regulate trade with foreign nations and with one another (Gershman 13).
However, in contrast to the Virginia plan, the new jersey plan would have allowed the resolution of disputes over such matters to originate in state courts. It is vital to note that Paterson proposed the New Jersey plan after more than two weeks of discussion in the Virginia plan, which had introduced the original agenda. Hence, the New Jersey featured a number of decisions to which convention had already agreed, but which its writers might not have developed and opted to introduce the plan at the start of the convention.
Similarly, New Jersey plan advocated for a series of emendations of the existing articles, whereas the Virginia plan called for development of the entire new plan of government. The Virginia plan advocated for a new amending process whereas the New Jersey plan opted to leave the existing requirement for unanimous state approval in place. The New Jersey plan proposed the need to give more power to congress by giving it the power to tax and regulate commerce. This was the main contrast to the Virginia which wanted to concentrate power in the central government and failed to delineate what could be the powers of the new government.
The resolution that called for establishing an executive listed a number of functions that this office would perform (Vile 54). Whereas the Virginia plan would have allowed Congress to start impeachment proceedings, the New Jersey plan advocated for state governors to initiate this process. On the resolution to favor the formation of an independent judiciary, Virginia plan advocated for vesting the appointment of judges in one or both houses of congress whereas New Jersey plan wanted the vest this power in the executive branch. Another difference was that new Jersey plan vividly recognized the need for extended national power.
After discussions of centering on the Virginia plan, the new Jersey plan agreed there was a need for greater power, especially based on requisitioning of revenue from the states (Vile 55). New Jersey plan expressed willingness to enable the national government to have small standing power. Although it was willing to accept a more independent executive and judiciary, the New Jersey plan did not consider the delegates required to commence from scratch as the Virginia had done. Despite both plans having same stand on the vesting greater powers in congress, Virginia plan was much more likely to appeal to delegates from more populous state who chafed under their equal representation in congress. On the other hand, New Jersey plan was so concerned with small states, who wanted to maintain their current status.
In a recap, the main issue in the convention debates was not whether there would be a powerful central government, but the issue was who would control it. The Virginia plan wanted a central government with adequate power, not with local or state matters. On the other hand, New Jersey plan was concerned not only with the need to control any type of government that allowed the large states to exploit them, but also with the significance of retaining state power and voice even at the federal level. This is the reason why small states supported the New Jersey plan. They feared emergence of a powerful government dominated by a legislature. To resolve these differences, the Virginia plan was modified and the new Jersey plan was allowed to vote. The main similarity between the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan was that both rejected a model of government in which the executive would be given more power. Similarly, the main difference was that Virginia plan wanted to concentrate power in the central government and failed to delineate what could be the powers of the new government whereas New Jersey wanted decentralized power. Therefore, there was a remarkable difference between the New Jersey plan and the Virginia plan.
Works Cited
Gershman, Gary P. The Legislative Branch of Federal Government: People, Process, and Politics. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2008. Print.
Vile, John . The Writing and Ratification of the U.s. Constitution: Practical Virtue in Action. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012. Print.
