You, being a Federalist, have previously made known that you are in support of a strong national government. If we used this idea for out new nation, it would not be any different than staying under the government of Great Britain. It is human nature to assume control and try to take power. The central government would be no different. This government would begin to control the states and do anything it wants with them. Is this not why we separated from England? The English government started taking advantage of the colonies because it had too much power. It took advantage by taxing the colonies without properly representing them in Parliament. It took advantage by housing troops among the citizens. This is why the central government cannot be so strong.
We agree that our new constitution must protect the rights of all. You say that the constitution itself will do this and that if we listed all the rights that the citizens should have, the list would be extremely long and tedious. I say we do need a certain list of rights; we only need to list the rights that governments tend to try to take away. Other rights are obvious and do not need to be listed. This is why we need a fairly brief bill of rights; it does not have to be long and tedious.
We also agree that a process for enacting laws is a necessity; this process is known to us as ratification. Where we differ is when you say it must be a unanimous vote. If we insist on unanimity, nothing will ever get accomplished. If you remember, this was a big problem with the Articles of Confederation, which we both agree needs to be replaced by a stronger constitution. If even one state did not completely understand what was being put forth, this process could be delayed indefinitely. We must lower the standards of approving laws. If we move to nine out of thirteen, we will be able to accomplish so much more. There are going to be things that are necessary for government, and we will not have time to waste waiting to get the unanimous vote.