Structure
Both the Virginia and New Jersey Plans are similar in terms of proposing a federal government for the United States (US) divided into the executive, legislative and judicial branches. However, both the Virginia and New Jersey Plans differ from one another in terms of power distribution. Greater legislative power is promoted by the Virginia Plan, which plans to delegate executive and judicial appointments to the legislature. Proponents of the New Jersey Plan, however, recommended a more balanced power distribution by enabling the legislature to appoint officials to the executive branch, which in turn would appoint officials to the judiciary. Moreover, both the Virginia and New Jersey Plans differ in terms of their proposed legislative structures. The Virginia Plan suggested a bicameral congress for the legislature, with its members elected via proportional representation to the House of Representatives and the Senate for three-year and seven-year terms, respectively. The New Jersey Plan pushed for a unicameral congress with representatives voted by colonial assemblies per each state on the basis of equal representation for terms that are three to six-year long terms.
Representing Congress
In terms of congressional representation in the legislature, the Virginia Plan advocated for proportional representation, while the New Jersey Plan supported equal representation. Under the Virginia Plan, members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate gain representation based on the population of their states and are elected via popular elections and state legislature elections, respectively. Equal representation prevails under the New Jersey Plan, which treats the Continental Congress as its basis for electing members of congress via their respective state colonial assemblies for three to six-year terms, with each member having one vote for their state.
Power of Congress
The Virginia and New Jersey Plans have respective renditions of congressional power. Roles such as creating regulations over interstate trading, using the military for law enforcement and abolishing federal and state laws deemed unconstitutional form the core of legislative power advocated by the Virginia Plan. On the other hand, the New Jersey Plan sought to emphasize the superiority of federal laws over state laws by assigning greater trade regulations to the federal government, particularly tariffs. A notable similarity featured in the congressional powers proposed by both the Virginia and New Jersey Plans is the tension involved between federal and state governments. The federal government sought to control states in consonance with their agreement to their union, while state governments strongly asserted their autonomy from the federal government.
The Executive
The executive branch under the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan differed in terms of structure and elections. Federal laws are executed mainly by the executive representative, as proposed by the Virginia Plan. Being a close equivalent of the US President in modern times, the executive representative is elected by the legislature for a seven-year term, has the power to preside over executive appointments and may be ousted via impeachment due to failure to uphold and carry out duties. The New Jersey Plan, however, deviates from the one-man chief executive model through its proposal to form a federal executive body. Albeit the absence of term limits, the New Jersey Plan specified that members of the federal executive may not be reelected and may be reviewed via congressional recall as requested by state executives. The Articles of Confederation serve as the main archetype of the New Jersey Plan in proposing the federal executive, particularly in compelling states towards compliance to federal laws.
The Judiciary
Differences in the setup of the judiciary prevail within the comparison of the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. For the Virginia Plan, the federal judiciary is headed by the supreme tribunal, with the Senate appointing its justices. Judges at lower tribunals are appointed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, albeit the absence of clear details. The supreme tribunal holds cases such as impeachment, national revenue and war, and is instrumental in maintaining checks and balances in the federal government. The New Jersey Plan briefly detailed its plan for the federal judiciary, also referred as the supreme tribunal, as the final appellate court for cases of national impact such as treaties with other nations and impeachment of executive officials.
Influence on the Federal Government
The Great Compromise became the ultimate resolution that utilized both the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan in designing the federal government. Proportional representation, a Virginia Plan proposal, became the rule for the House of Representatives, whereas equal representation, a New Jersey proposal, became the rule for the Senate. Therefore, larger states gained greater control over the House of Representatives, while the Senate became an arena for smaller states to exert their control. In looking at the roles of the House of Representatives on defining the federal budget and rules on taxation, it would appear at first that the Virginia Plan is more relevant to influencing the federal government. However, the New Jersey Plan serves as an effective buffer to the foregoing, given the role of the Senate as a vetoing body for bills originating from the House of Representatives, hence balancing the influence of the Virginia Plan on the federal government. Therefore, there is an understanding that both the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan are relevant influences to the federal government.
