Why do you think the state leaders believed they should have written constitutions?

The adoption of the Declaration of Independence of 1776 entailed the need to establish regional governments. Separation from the mother country meant that the North American territories were no longer colonies of the British Empire, but became independent states. Already in the early stages of the development of the self-determination process, a conflict with Great Britain became apparent. The revolutionary movement had previously intended to break with Britain as a whole, and it was imperative to establish some form of legitimate government. The main efforts were initially aimed at ignoring the power of the royal governors. Provincial congresses or committees formed in various ways sought to go their own way with the adoption of their own constitutions.

Speaking about the prerequisites for the adoption of the constitutions of the colonies and the future federal constitution, it should also be noted that the constitution, being the main law of the state, reflects the most important patterns of the development of society.

The constituent parts of the preamble of the constitutions were bill of rights, or a declaration of rights, which contained a list of bourgeois-democratic rights and freedoms, as well as guarantees of the inviolability of the person (freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, right to a speedy and impartial jury trial, the right not to give evidence against self).

The legal and political ideas and views of prominent revolutionaries such as Payne, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson served as an important prerequisite for the adoption of the constitutions of the colonies and the federation. It is no coincidence that in the period preceding the US Declaration of Independence, many European legal ideas experienced a rebirth in the New World. So, on the eve of the creation of an independent North American state, in 1775, the famous lawyer, enlightener, future second US president John Adams argued that the purpose of the constitution was “the creation of a government of laws, not of people,” that is, a power based on impartial rules and regulations and not on the prejudices or preferences inherent in man.

Explanation:

he believed that congress would be better not dealing with "lobbyists", or people who seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue, since historically, they had problems with these kinds of people. he thought lobbying produces benefits, but should be carefully monitored.