#1: Was the Constitution legitimate? - Fed: Yes b/c state legislatures appointed them to the Constitutional Convention - Anti: No b/c delegates only had authority to amend the Articles of Confederation #2: Was the new national govt too strong, thus reducing the states to mere administrative districts? - Fed: - Anti:
#1: Was the Constitution legitimate? - Fed: Yes b/c state legislatures appointed them to the Constitutional Convention - Anti: No b/c delegates only had authority to amend the Articles of Confederation #2: Was the new national govt too strong? - Fed: No, there were enough protections in the Constitution to prevent this from happening and a stronger union was desperately needed - Anti: Yes, the states would be reduced to mere administrative districts doing the national govt's bidding & the people's liberties would be threatened
#3: No Bill of Rights - Fed: Most thought it unnecessary b/c Constitution did not give national govt power to interfere or infringe on individual rights - Anti: Adamantly in favor of BOR to protect individual liberty
Note: What did Hamilton fear would happen with a BOR?
- govt would assume authority in any area not specified in the BOR (such as the right to eat what you want?!!!)
#4: Amending the Constitution - Fed: Too difficult under the Articles of Confederation b/c all the states had to agree to any changes; majority rule should be enough - Anti: Felt that the amendment process in the Constitution would make it too easy to make changes & therefore wanted unanimous consent of all the states
Of course, plenty of other issues were debated, but these four were the most contentious issues.
Who compromised and what was the compromise that allowed the Constitution to be ratified?
- The Federalists agreed to send suggested amendments that would serve as a BOR along with the Constitution to the various state ratification conventions. They also promised to pass this BOR as soon as the Constitution was ratified. They held true to this promise.