I agree. For the sake of the non-wealthy, we have to prevent the ratification of the constitution. The federalists papers that I have seen have all been written by wealthy elites! The concerns of the poor need to be heeded! Ratifying the constitution will encourage elites to represent all citizens. There is no way for an elite representative in a large republic to understand and reflect the minds of their under-privileged constituents.

One example of the constitution being similar to the monarchy of Britain is the formation of a government standing army. Britain's standing army was used against its own citizens to keep them suppressed and take their liberty. We should learn from our history and avoid the formation of a federal standing army at all costs. We should not ratify the constitution.

In the court case McCulloch v. Maryland, the state of Maryland opposed the federal bank in their state. Instead of the government recognizing the state's concern and taking into the account the ideas of the citizens, the government cited the constitution's vague necessary and proper clause to justify the bank's existence. However, the constitution also says that "The powers not delegated to the US by Const. Nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people." The reserved powers were violated because of the vagueness of the federal government's enumerated powers.

The federal government's enumerated powers are not limited enough because some of them are too vague. These enumerated powers could be used to justify taking state's power gradually. An example of this is that ,if the constitution is ratified, the federal government could cite the necessary and proper clause and use it to get rid of the state's government (Brutus 1). This would be a major federal overreach but it is not prevented through the current constitution.

The country should not have the ability to have a standing military because it is a danger to the states. Our country should depend on state's militia so as to avoid being suppressed by an overpowered federal military. Think about how the Britain's federal military suppressed its own citizens by enforcing unfair laws.

The constitution's checks on the branches of federal government are rendered useless when clauses such as the Supremacy clause and the Necessary and Proper clause are included in the document. They are so vague that the different branches of the government could justify almost anything through those clauses and still technically be within their powers. There are too many ways that the checks and balances could be ignored that it will be ineffective. It is human nature for those in power to want to use any means necessary to avoid following rules that are meant to slow them down.

The constitution's checks on the branches of federal government are rendered useless when clauses such as the Supremacy clause and the Necessary and Proper clause are included in the document. They are so vague that the different branches of the government could justify almost anything through those clauses and still technically be within their powers.

Anytime the "federal branch" is mentioned, federal government is what it means.

If the constitution is ratified, it will cause the government to be ineffective. A large republic can’t work because there will be so much variance that gridlock will occur. Furthermore, Representatives can’t possibly know their constituents because there will be so many per representative. These are the reasons that a large republic has been avoided in history.

The way the constitution sets up the proposed republic is dangerous. It gives the federal branch too much power over the states. The supremacy clause puts the federal legislation above the states'. This could be abused very easily along with the Necessary and Proper clause. It is so vague that the federal government can justify almost any legislation or orders with it. The Federal Branch could even justify getting rid of state governments because the very words “necessary” and “proper” are subjective. We have to protect the state’s rights and say no to ratifying the constitution.