why did the framers oppose submitting constitution to existing congress or state governments for ratification

Question

American History

Answer 1

As far as submitting it to Congress. One major problem was that it had been so difficult to agree to THIS document, that having it also go through Congress might destroy it. And Congress was amenable to regard this group --which THEY had set up-- as their representatives, and to simply submit their work to the STATES for ratification.

Also note that, since Congress was still operating under the Articles of Confederation, which required a UNANIMOUS vote (that is, a majority of EACH state delegation) for amendment, it would be far more difficult EVER to pass such a change. (They had tried several times on smaller items and always failed.) Rhode Island, in particular, would likely vote "No" to ANY new constitution... and thereby kill it.

Next, it was clearly important to have broad support from people in the various states --not just a national group.

There are a few reasons why working via state conventions rather than state legislatures made more sense -- and it's not JUST that Constitution supporters thought they had 'a better chance' this way. (In fact, the state legislatures had to SET UP the state conventions, how they were to be selected, etc. so had some chance to work against it at that point.)

Here's one summary of the reasons (and check the full article for more on the whole ratification process):

"The ratifying conventions served the necessary function of informing the public of the provisions of the proposed new government. They also served as forums for proponents and opponents to articulate their ideas before the citizenry. . . . state conventions. . . insured that the Constitution's authority came from representatives of the people specifically elected for the purpose of approving or disapproving the charter, resulting in a more accurate reflection of the will of the electorate. Also, by bypassing debate in the state legislatures, the Constitution avoided disabling amendments that states, jealous of yielding authority to a national government, would likely have attached."

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/ratification.html

Answer 2

The U.S. Constitution outlined the process of ratification (see Article VII), and the document would not take effect until the states called ratifying conventions and voted on whether or not to accept the new constitution. At this time, no political parties existed, but members of factions who favored the U.S. Constitution became known as "federalists" while those opposing the U.S. Constitution became known as "anti-federalists." The U.S. Constitution dominated political discourse between Sept. 17, 1787, when the delegates to the Philadelphia convention signed the document, and 1790 when Rhode Island became the last state to ratify it. The issues polarized U.S. citizens. Issues revolved around the best way to secure liberty for U.S. citizens, and revolved around the following debates: whether the U.S. Constitution should include a bill of rights or not, whether the states or the federal government had more authority, whether a large republic could function effectively, and whether political factions would destroy the union. Anti-federalists lost the war; Federalist sympathizers ratified the constitution by late July 1788, and the new government convened until the U.S. Constitution in 1789. But the new government had to amend the document to protect citizens from excessive political power - Congress authorized the Bill of Rights in 1789, and the required number of states ratified these first ten amendments to the Constitution in 1791, thus establishing the government under which the U.S. functions 211 years later.

gatita_63109

Answer 3

The constitutionitself, no amendments defined the government, but did not adress individual rights and freedoms. these were big issues and were in large part much of the reason for the American Revolution. The first ten amendments,"The Bill Of Rights", adressed thi issueand upon completion and inclusion with the constitution made it acceptable to many who opposed it.

Answer 4

look at india nothing would have passed
it is said time taken to arrive at a decision is propotional to the cube of the persons involved
example

if 2 person take 4 hours to arrive at a decision then
4 person will 16 hours for the same
8 person will require 256 hours