Final answer:
The '9 out of 13' states approval feature in the Articles of Confederation safeguarded against overpowering central authority, preserved state autonomy, and stemmed from a historical preference for self-governance in small communities. The Constitution later provided a more practical mechanism for ratification and amendment, reflecting the necessity for a flexible government structure capable of adapting to the nation's evolving needs.
Step-by-step explanation:
The feature that 'laws needed approval by 9 out of 13 states' was included in the Articles of Confederation to ensure that the central government did not wield too much power, a concern stemming from the recent experiences with British rule.
Under the Articles, every state had an equal vote in the Continental Congress and the required approval of nine states to pass legislation was intended to safeguard the autonomy of individual states. However, this also led to difficulties in enacting laws, as states would often refuse to fund policies that went against their own interests. Hence, the Articles established a government that had limited authority, respecting the ideal of self-rule in towns and states, in line with historical political philosophy advocating for effective governance in small, tight-knit communities.
In contrast, the 1787 Constitution presented a balance between national and federal features. While maintaining state powers, it also enabled the Congress to have broader authority, which could be expanded upon by various clauses like the 'necessary and proper' clause and the Supremacy Article. Unlike the Articles, the Constitution provided a more flexible process for amendment, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and approval by three-quarters of state legislatures, reflecting the necessity for a dynamic and adaptable government framework.
In terms of ratification, the new Constitution required approval from only nine states, as opposed to the unanimous consent required for the Articles. This was put in place because securing unanimous approval from all thirteen states was considered highly unlikely, especially given states such as Rhode Island's reluctance to participate. The ratification process itself took place in state conventions, a democratically elected assembly, which allowed for debate and approval by the states, therefore facilitating a more practical and achievable ratification process.