What is the connection between ratification and the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights was ratified two years after the Constitution went into effect.

Five states ratified on the condition that amendments would be added soon after the Constitution went into effect.

Alexander Hamilton opposed a Bill of Rights because he feared that if rights were written down, the rights of the people would be limited to only those rights that were written in the Constitution.

The Constitutional Convention considered a Bill of Rights but decided not to include it in the document that it sent to the states.

The Process of Ratification

On September 17, 1787, the the delegates at the Philadelphia Convention finalized the new United States Constitution. The old Congress maintained the powers to expedite or block its ratification. Benjamin Franklin gave a speech shortly after the Constitution had been completed, urging unanimity among all states. However, the Convention had decided that only nine states—two-thirds of the total number of states—would need to ratify the Constitution in order to inaugurate the new government. More populous states, such as Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts, would be critical to this process.

On September 28, 1787, after some debate, Congress unanimously decided to submit the Constitution to the states for action. The need for only nine states was a controversial decision at the time, as the Articles of Confederation could only be amended through a unanimous vote of all states. The fight for ratification was arduous, largely because special conventions were required in lieu of hearings within the state legislatures for ratification. Many state governments were also interested in retaining their powers and were resistant to ratifying a new, stronger, centralized government.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists

Two parties soon developed: Federalists in support of the Constitution and Anti-Federalists opposed. The Constitution was debated, criticized, and expounded clause-by-clause.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays popularly referred to as The Federalist Papers, which supported ratification and attacked the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. The men acknowledged that the Constitution was not perfect, but argued it was far superior to any other proposal made. The essays explored the proposed Constitution, defended its provisions, and outlined the ways in which its check and balances would prevent abuses of power. The Federalists defended the weakest points of the Constitution (such as its current lack of a bill of individual rights) by suggesting that current protections were sufficient and that Congress could always propose amendments later.

However, Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry attacked the Constitution, suggesting it would lead to a dangerously powerful national government. They cited the lack of a bill of rights as a dangerous omission. Many were concerned that the strong national government was a threat to individual rights and that the President would ultimately become like a king. They also objected to the federal court system proposed in the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights was ratified two years after the Constitution went into effect.

Five states ratified on the condition that amendments would be added soon after the Constitution went into effect.

Alexander Hamilton opposed a Bill of Rights because he feared that if rights were written down, the rights of the people would be limited to only those rights that were written in the Constitution.

The Constitutional Convention considered a Bill of Rights but decided not to include it in the document that it sent to the states.

Explanation:

"a government in which power is divided between state and national levels". federalism is a system of government in which entities such and state and province, share power with the national government.

imma have to go   the third option

sorry if i am wrong hope this

if i am right plz give me brainliest