When the drafters of the Constitution of the Arizona, nary did they anticipate that the document they would produce would last over a hundred years, inclusive of two global conflicts, the new technologies of the space age and the social and cultural alterations in the United States (State Bar of Arizona, 2009). During the 1900’s, former United States President William Howard Taft went to the territory, as the future state was about to begin the process of accession to the Union (Arizona, 2009).
In his statement to the settlers in the territory, Taft warned them not to tread the path that another recently admitted state, Oklahoma (Arizona, 2009). He told them to forego the adoption of such progressive policies such as initiatives and referendums (Arizona, 2009). But in the basic comparison of the state constitution and the United States Constitution, the primary factor is that in the Constitution of the United States, it prescribes limited powers, as contrasted to the state constitution, where there is a broad range of powers granted under their ambit (Arizona, 2009).
Also, the Federal fundamental law lacks a provision for the police power initiative, or a “general welfare clause” (Arizona, 2009). State constitutions have that feature that enlarges the scope of the authority embedded in the state fundamental law (Arizona, 2009). The Federal Constitution does however have more far reaching scope in its laws and provisions, as the state laws are only applicable to the domain of the state (Arizona, 2009).
In the shorter Federal law, the powers are mentioned whereas the state declares both powers and the limitation of the powers (Arizona, 2009). The similarities of the state and Federal range in the mention of the structure of government, the branches of government, and the democratic processes available to the citizens to instigate an atmosphere of accountability to the citizenry and society at large.