One reason that people opposed the ratification of constitution was because it did not contain a

The transition from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution wasn't a seamless one, and fixing the problems of the Articles of Confederation required a series of lengthy debates both during and after the convention. But one thing was certain, something had to be changed. Fifty-five Delegates met at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to determine how best to adjust the existing document.

The Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation were:

Each state only had one vote in Congress, regardless of size

Congress didn't have the power to tax, or to regulate foreign and interstate commerce

There was no executive branch to enforce any acts passed by Congress

There was no national court system

Amendments to the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote

Laws required a 9/13 majority to pass in Congress

These weaknesses introduced a great deal of interstate conflict, something that delegates, through the drafting of the Constitution, tried their best to solve. However, under the Articles, when the Founding Fathers signed the Constitution in 1787, it needed the ratification from nine states before it could go into effect. This was not easy. And the push for ratification brought on a seemingly endless barrage of documents, articles, and pamphlets both supporting and opposing it.

There were two sides to the Great Debate: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists wanted to ratify the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists did not. One of the major issues these two parties debated concerned the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists felt that this addition wasn't necessary, because they believed that the Constitution as it stood only limited the government not the people. The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government too much power, and without a Bill of Rights the people would be at risk of oppression.

what is your question? i can you

answer: false. due to the church's swaying authority on common law, it influenced secular music greatly.

explanation: