Research and role-play the Federalist and Anti-Federalist positions on ratifying the Constitution, presenting at least one honest, real argument from each side and its historical resolution.
Once the Constitution was written, it still had to be ratified, or formally approved, by the states -- and Americans disagreed sharply about whether it should be. Federalists, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, argued in a series of essays called the Federalist Papers that a strong central government was necessary for order, defense, and a stable economy, pointing to the Articles of Confederation's failures as proof.
Anti-Federalists, including Patrick Henry and George Mason, feared that a strong central government could become just as tyrannical as the king the colonies had recently fought to escape, and many refused to support ratification without a guaranteed bill of rights; George Mason himself refused to sign the finished Constitution for exactly this reason. This week, you will research and present both real sides of this debate, then explain its actual resolution: the promise of a Bill of Rights, added in 1791, which persuaded enough Anti-Federalists to allow ratification to succeed in every state by 1790.
Mastery looks like: They can present one real Federalist and one real Anti-Federalist argument and explain that the Bill of Rights resolved the ratification debate.
Common stumbles: Presenting only one side of the debate; forgetting the actual historical resolution of the promised Bill of Rights.