Basic argument of the Federalists for ratification <span>of the constitution is that it would give the central government more powers which was essential for the survival of the United States. A stronger central government would improve the economy, foreign relations, and would give the government more power to levy taxes and execute laws, as well as the power to create a strong military without permission from the states.
Arguments against the ratification would be used by ANTI-Federalists, NOT Federalists.
Those arguments against ratification were that the central government would get too powerful and strip the average citizens of their rights. Other problems that were brought forth were the states' representation in the government. Eventually, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution and the anti-Federalists were less apposed to it.
</span><span>
</span>
Answer:Charles 1
Explanation:As a King, Charles I was disastrous; as a man, he faced his death with courage and dignity. His trial and execution were the first of their kind.
Well there's so many to choose from but I would say one of the greatest historians was Thucydides. He was the g<span>reatest of ancient Greek historians and author of the History of the Peloponnesian War.
I'm currently learning about him in history right now.</span>
When an appellate court reaches a verdict, it is common for a written opinion<span> to be provided, announcing the court’s decision, and its reasoning behind arriving at that decision. When a panel of judges is involved, those judges who disagree with the majority vote may supply their own written opinions, expressing their reasons for dissenting. This is called a </span>dissenting opinion. To explore this concept, consider the following <span>dissenting opinion </span><span>definition.</span>
A, ethnic and religious divisions. Religious and social differentiation between the Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims
