Who made a better argument about ratification? the federalists or the anti-federalists? why?

i think it is d korean

b. great plains

hope this

1) checks and balances- this idea is implemented in the constitution to ensure that no one branch of the federal government gains too much power. for example, the legislative branch(congress) can approve a bill that will then be sent to the executive branch (president). if the president does not like the bill or thinks that it violates the rights of citizens, he/she can veto the bill. vetoing the bill stops the bill from becoming a law. this check on power ensures that congress makes laws that do not violate the rights of citizens.

2) anti-federalists do not want to ratify the constitution unless it includes a bill of rights. the anti-federalists are worried that the constitution gives too much power to the federal government. having a strong central government caused problems when the us was still part of great britain. this is why the anti-federalists are fearful of this type of system.

3) federalists want a new constitution passed because it will fix america's weak political structure. before the us constitution is implemented, the constitution being used is known as the articles of confederation. this constitution has an extremely weak central government, allowing for disunity among the states.

can't do the whole thing, hope this

social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they liv