Under the Articles of Confederation, decentralization resulted in many problems.

One
such problem was the inability to change the Articles of Confederation. The only way to amend it
was by getting a unanimous consent between congress, and then all state legislatures had to
confirm the bill before it could be amended to the Articles of Confederation. In the Constitution,
Article 5 sets up the provisions for amending the Constitution as needing to have three quarters
of the states ratify a bill. This change from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution,
allowed amendments to happen if substantially more states believed it to be beneficial than not,
which meant that even with some opposition, an amendment could pass.
Another issue was the lack of checks and balances due to the unicameral system.
However, in the constitution, a system was established to make sure none of the three branches
abused their power. This was done by allowing the judicial branch to interpret laws from the
legislative branch and declare them unconstitutional as well as declare presidential acts
unlawful or unconstitutional. The executive branch is given the power to nominates judges for
the judicial branch and veto the legislative branch. The legislative branch has the power to
impeach presidents and judges, must confirm presidential nominations for the judicial branch,
approve presidential nominations, and can override a presidential veto with a two thirds majority.
The Articles of Confederation also allowed states to make treaties with foreign countries
separate from those made by the national government. However, in the constitution, federalism
was established making it so that rather than having separate policies, the national and state
governments shared policymaking and had mutual policies.
The tension between decentralized power and centralized power continues to exist, and
can be seen with issues surrounding gun control. When it comes to centralized power, there are
many restrictions on gun ownership and purchasing establish by various acts throughout history.
As early as the Constitution, the issue was already being addressed by central powers by
guaranteeing that citizens had the right to bear arms. Since then, restrictions on gun ownership
have been enacted. For example, the 1938 Federal Firearms Act required firearm distributors to
have a Federal Firearms License, and keep records on all who purchased weapons from them.
Following multiple assassinations, the victims of which including the Kennedy brothers and
Martin Luther King Jr., the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed which restricted sales from
felons, drug users, and those deemed mentally incompetent. In 1994 two acts were passed to
further restrict gun sales. The first of which established a screening process for buyers without a
gun license. The second one prevented juvenile possession and sale of firearms, and outlawed
civilian possession and use of semiautomatic assault weapons, which expired in 2004. All
throughout this there have been many instances of tension between centralized and
decentralized power in regard to these acts. For example, California has multiple restrictions on
firearm possession which differ from federal regulations. Californias restrictions include the
requirement of a state permit, registration of firearms, a continued ban on assault weapons,
restrictions on magazine capacity, the requirement of a carry permit, restrictions on openly
carrying a gun, a waiting period in place, and requires background checks prior to a firearm
sale. While several of these line up with federal restrictions, even some of those differ from the
details of centralized power restrictions, such as the 10-day waiting in California vs. the 5-day
wait required by the federal government. These differences cause tensions as the state and

federal governments disagree with regulations, as the federal government says that many
things are legal in the state while the California government says they are not legal.