AP U.S. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS · UNIT 1 · 2026–2027
Would You Ratify?
Work in pairs or trios. Rotate reader, evidence finder, and challenger; in a pair, share the third role. Each student writes responses in a notebook. Write before opening a hint or model explanation.
1. Read the evidence · 3 minutes
The decision: Imagine a state ratifying convention in 1788. The proposed Constitution has stronger national powers and structural checks, but no separate Bill of Rights. Advocates promise to pursue amendments after ratification. Decide whether that assurance addresses the strongest objections.
“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”
Constitution, Article VII · Primary source
A later outcome—not a document the delegates already possessed: Congress proposed amendments in 1789. Ten became the Bill of Rights in 1791. Its proposal acknowledged that state conventions wanted additional restrictions to prevent abuse.
“in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”
Preamble to the 1789 amendment resolution · Primary source and dates
2. Prepare both positions · 5 minutes · 6 points
- Give one reason a Federalist would support ratification before a Bill of Rights was added. Name a particular power or safeguard. 2 points
- Give one reason an Anti-Federalist would demand explicit protections. Explain why structure alone might not reassure that critic. 2 points
- Explain why ratifying the Constitution and ratifying the Bill of Rights required different procedures. 2 points
Hint
Think about the Articles' weaknesses, the promise of checks and balances, and the danger of leaving rights unstated. Article VII established the Constitution; Article V provides for amendments.
Check your reasoning
A Federalist could point to national taxation or commerce powers as solutions to problems under the Articles and to separated powers as protection against abuse. An Anti-Federalist could fear that national officials would use broad powers against speech or other liberties despite those safeguards. Article VII required nine state conventions to establish the Constitution among ratifying states. Article V requires a proposal followed by ratification in three-fourths of the states. Award one point for each accurate claim and one for its explanation.
3. Test a protection · 4 minutes · 4 points
Hypothetical: After ratification of the Bill of Rights, Congress passes a law prohibiting peaceful newspaper criticism of national officials.
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”
First Amendment, excerpt; ellipsis marks omitted words · Primary source
Identify the relevant protection, apply it to the law, and explain how the protection answers an Anti-Federalist concern. Would the amendment alone settle every disagreement about national power?
Check your reasoning
The First Amendment protects speech and the press (1). The law suppresses peaceful criticism of government (1). An express restriction directly answers the fear that national power might punish dissent (1). It does not resolve every dispute about the extent of congressional power, representation, or enforcement (1). This scenario concerns Congress; applying many Bill of Rights protections to states involves later Fourteenth Amendment doctrine.
4. Decide · 3 minutes · 2 points
Return to 1788. State your ratification decision and support it with one constitutional mechanism. Then name the strongest objection to your own position. Award one point for a supported decision and one for a fair objection. Either decision can earn full credit.