Which was a negative consequence of not having a judicial branch under the AOC
One negative consequence of not having a judicial branch under the Articles of Confederation (AOC) was the lack of a centralized authority to interpret and enforce laws. This led to conflicting interpretations of laws, as each state had its own legal system and could enforce its own interpretation of laws within its jurisdiction. This absence of a central judiciary created a situation where there was no uniformity or consistency in legal matters across the states.
The lack of a judicial branch also meant that there was no mechanism to settle disputes between states. This became particularly problematic in cases of interstate conflicts or disputes over trade, taxation, or boundaries. Without a neutral arbiter, these conflicts often escalated, leading to tensions and potential violence between states.
The absence of a judicial branch also made it difficult to enforce federal laws and carry out obligations under treaties. The central government had limited power to compel compliance or resolve disputes, as it relied on the cooperation of the states. This weakened the effectiveness and authority of the central government, and ultimately hampered its ability to govern effectively.
Overall, the lack of a judicial branch under the Articles of Confederation resulted in confusion, inconsistency, and an inability to resolve disputes, which contributed to the overall weaknesses and failures of the AOC system.