Ok, so I have a debate regarding the ratification of the constituation. Basically, I'm supposed to address the delegation at Poughkeepsie (me, being a New Yorker), and persuade them that ratification is a bad thing, and they shouldn't do it.
I've been searching all over, and I really haven't found any good sources. I have my set of talking points:
-federal gov't will take away rights of the people
-unity is uneeded
-states should be independent and rule themseles
-states already have individual constitutions/bill of rights (something the constitution lacks)
But other than that, I can't really find anything to expand or to add upon that.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks. :)
Maybe you could say that it is "gilded trap", and to have a single constitution would jeopardize the sovereignty of all the states, make them all conform to a single set of rules when their circumstances are so obviously different.
Or perhaps you could say that it is a ploy used by the rich to become richer...I dunno. Good luck though!
[img]">http://www.acaciatree.net/images/coursenotes.gif[/img][/RIGHT]
well if youre supposed to say that ratification was bad( which it wus actually the complete opposite) then talk about the states fear about having a federal government that would rule them with "an all powerful hand." the states were afraid that they would lose all power and have no say in government. uhmmmm, cant think of anything else right now so i hope this helps some.... :)