wow this guy or girl really knows what he is talking about and has very good grammar. I also agree that the states would be more corrupt then a large federal government!!!!!!!

In no way is this true. There are multiple checks and balances to prevent this and also a term limit so the people can have a say on who is running there country. Also the states still have power such as the 10th Amendment.

The Constitution should not be ratified. Big government means slower process. This will lead to a situation where nothing gets passed and progression in the country will come to a halt.

Another reason to support the Federalist argument is that with a strong federal government it protects our rights much better. To become a leader in the federal government there is more filters then the state. Also it is proven that people that work in the federal government are more educated and better qualified.

This is true but also false. Yes there will be differences of opinions and it will make things go slower but it will not lead to grid lock. Luckily we have a good set of checks and balances the people elect the officials. The majority of people do not want gridlock they things to change for the better. So lets say the officials do gridlock the system, all that means is that they wont get re elected. And since there career is on the line and they want to make money they will do everything they can to please the people so they can get re elected.

We are arguing whether or not the constitution not whether our presedent is good or bad. Can you clarify whether you are an Anti fed or federal.

Actually it does not. If states were more powerful the richer states would eventually become a federal government and since they are supposed to be equal but are more powerful they would hold that against the worse states.

I agree a government that is held together by universal laws is going to have an equal standard per state. It allows for the country to grow as a whole instead of individual states growing and leaving others behind. This would lead to a very corrupt and divided country.

If anything having strong state governments would be tyrannical because they would put themselves first and the other states second. With a strong federal government not tied to a state its harder to put people first. With a strong federal government laws and money can be spread across the country evenly whether then the states hoarding it to themselves.

Back when the America's states all had different currencies and no big central government they co existed rather then co operated.

With a big federal government and small state governments it is easier to gather money for things such as a strong standing military, health care, social security, government assistance programs, and plenty more. The federal government has this great source of money because it can tax all the states so it has a bigger money pool. If the states had more control then the federal government then the states would keep the money within their state. This would lead to states with really nice areas then areas that are not kept up at all. States would not help others in need because they would be to busy looking out for themselves. With a powerful federal government this can be prevented and money can be well regulated and equally distributed based on what the representatives vote on. According to Federalist 44 if states were left to raise money on their own there would be to much mischief and no one to regulate it. It would be a very corrupt system. Also with a federal government that is strong it would issue out the same currency for all the states. If we had big state governments then the currencies would be different like they were. This would lead to different values per dollar, different inflation per state,and it would be harder to collect money or spend money in different states. With a unified central government it allows the country to grow stronger easier.

I believe the constitution should be ratified because if you are going to be a unified government you need universal laws from a universal government. If Alabama and Texas had completely different laws what ties them together in a country. It would be more like allies at that point. If a country is going stay as one then they need to make laws that hold every one together and then laws that are region specific that wouldn't work nation wide should be left to the states.

I believe the constitution should be ratified because if you are going to be a unified government you need universal laws from a universal government. If Alabama and Texas had completely different laws what ties them together in a country. It would be more like allies at that point. If a country is going stay as one then they need to make laws that hold every one together and then laws that are region specific that wouldn't work nation wide should be left to the states.