GIVING 20 POINTS! . One of the biggest arguments against ratification of the Constitution was the lack of a Bill of Rights, protecting the freedoms many delegates felt they fought for in the Revolutionary War. Do you agree with this argument? Had you been a delegate at the Second Continental Congress, would you have fought for a Bill of Rights to be added before ratification? Why or Why not?

Your question has been heard loud and clear.

No , I would have fought for the bill of rights to be added after ratification because put simply , before ratification , you do not have a medium to pass the bill of rights , so logically fighting for bill of rights is only if the ratification does not include it , so when it does not include it , we fight for the bill of rights , I agree with this argument of lack of bill of rights as it is most certainly , fundamental to the constitution , and without it , freedom is a minor right which is often neglected. So definetly if bill of rights is not included in the constitution , ratification is not needed.

Thank you.

there are no options provided but you can choose among the following gender-neutral pronouns: zir, hir, eir, vis, tem, eir.

in the normal course of maintaining a pronoun-antecedent agreement, we could have used the words his or her but since we are also required to use gender-neutral language, we need to replace it with its equivalent gender-neutral pronoun.

no one should discriminated against because he or she is not from a minority group