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>
The beginning of the Lutheran Church :)
Patrick Henry was against a strong, centralized national government and constitution because he wished to see real, structural limitations on the new government’s power, such as taking away its authority to tax. He felt that a strong government <span>betrayed the principles of the Revolution.</span>
In conclusion, both philosophically and actually, the founding fathers were representative of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. While it maybe said that our Founding Fathers "did not turn to the Bible," they were influenced by its contents
They were called missions.
the answer is b. good luck :))
