Which proposed governance structure was ultimately favored over the Articles of Confederation?

The United States Constitution was favored over the Articles of Confederation because it addressed the significant weaknesses present in the original governing document. The Articles of Confederation established a loose alliance of states with a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate commerce, or enforce laws, leading to numerous challenges in governance, including financial instability and difficulties in addressing interstate conflicts.

The Constitution replaced the Articles because it created a stronger federal government with distinct powers divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This framework allowed for effective governance, the ability to levy taxes, and the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Furthermore, the Constitution incorporated mechanisms for amendments, ensuring that it could evolve over time to meet the changing needs of the nation.

In contrast, a parliamentary system and a confederated assembly were not viable alternatives considered during the Constitutional Convention, as the delegates worked to strike a balance between state and federal powers while ensuring a functioning government. The notion of a second iteration of the Articles of Confederation, referred to as the Articles of Confederation II, did not gain traction and was ultimately overshadowed by the stronger framework the Constitution provided.