Virginia and New Jersey Plans

A major issue facing the delegates of the 1787 Constitutional Convention was the adoption of a feasible written constitution. What would be best for the young nation-- a revised version of the unsuccessful Articles of Confederation or an entirely new document? Two different plans emerged to address this issue: The Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. These distinctly different approaches demonstrate the aspects of government that left the founding fathers divided. Ultimately, a compromise was reached borrowing ideas from both schools of thought. However, it is still important to analyze the Virginia and New Jersey plans to understand how the Constitution evolved.

Written primarily by James Madison, the Virginia Plan wanted nothing to do with the Articles of Confederation. It suggested three branches of national government that had considerable supremacy over individual states. One critical way to maintain the centralized power involved giving the government the right to veto any state laws that conflicted with the Constitution. Additionally, the main portion of the government would be a bicameral legislature with the lower house decided by population and the upper house selected by the lower house. Powers granted to this legislature include the right to pass laws, conduct foreign policy, and appoint most government officials. Discussed in ambiguous language was the executive branch and the term "executive rights"-- as worded in the plan-- was not clearly defined (Milkis & Nelson 13). Another part of this plan involved the formation of a Council of revision, which would be the executive and members of the National Judiciary, who would be allowed to veto a law passed by the legislature. In short, the Virginia Plan hoped to repair the damage done by the "'vices within the several states' that had produced an abundance of unjust and inconsistent legislation" and take "the transformation of the weak national government into the strong one the plan proposed" (Milkis & Nelson 13).

Conversely, the New Jersey Plan, proposed by William Paterson suggested amendments to the Articles of Confederation as opposed to an entirely new constitution. One of the more divisive problems amongst delegates regarding the Virginia Plan was the issue of population based representation. The New Jersey Plan wanted each state-- regardless of size-- to cast a single vote. It also wanted to add two branches of government to the one existing national body outlined in the Articles. A "plural, or committee-style executive, to be elected by Congress for a single term" would be formed along with a Supreme Court whose judges would be appointed by the Executive (Milkis & Nelson 15). This plan believed in a state-centralized government and "declared national laws and treaties to be the supreme law of the respective states" (Milkis & Nelson 15). Congress would regulate interstate and international commerce and impose taxes. Yet "the main purpose of the New Jersery Plan was an unstated one: to preserve the structure of Congress under the Articles; a single-branch, single-house government in which each state had one vote" (Milkis & Nelson 15). by the Executive (Milkis & Nelson 15). This plan believed in a state-centralized government and "declared national laws and treaties to be the supreme law of the respective states" (Milkis & Nelson 15).

There is little doubt that the Virginia Plan is the most feasible of the two options. A strong and united federal government is necessary. Although the Virginia Plan spoke vaguely of the Executive office, it emphasized the importance of Congress taking responsibility and making national decisions. The Articles of Confederation's weakness led it to crumble to the point of being completely ineffective, and it's weakness was the reliance on the rights of states over that of a national power. It also makes sense that larger, more populated states deserve more of a say within the national government because more of the country's citizens reside in these areas. Within this contemporary era, the New Jersey Plan would fail miserably. Can anyone possibly imagine a unicameral national legislature with state-centric policies trying to handle a crisis like the war in Iraq? Thankfully the eventual compromise fused the best parts from each plan into a Constitution that guides our nation.

WORKS CITED:

Milkis, Sidney M. and Nelson, Michael. The American Presidency: Origins and Development.
Congressional Quarterly, Inc.: Washington, D.C. 2007.