Each side would feel a certain way, in terms of how the system of government should be handled and what its role would need to be.
Making the argument in favor of the constitution and what it meant, would be Alexander Hamilton. The key to convincing the general populous, remains the dedication to the core argument within the issue and for Hamilton, he would seek to do just that. Hamilton would seek to make his case, through the creation of his work commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers. As for the work itself, "The Federalist Papers, originally written as a series of newspaper editorials intended to persuade New York to ratify the Constitution, remains the most valuable exposition of the political theory underlying the Constitution," (Hamilton, p.60). In order for something to be agreed to, it must first be understood.
The impact of Alexander Hamilton's work would be the ability to clearly define the core issue at the center of document itself. To make known the very thing that would ultimately have lead to the document's creation. First and foremost, Hamilton would make the argument that, in order to maintain a sense of organization within the nation, there must be some form a of guiding force that would keep everything, as well as everyone, together and in working order. In the end, so the government could be held to a stronger degree of regulation and to a higher standard of expectation, in terms of its specific responsibilities.
With regard to the founding fathers view of the current state of the American political system, they would see a system that would have a specific organization to it, would still fall sort of an absolute solid outline. Different interpretations bring about potential changes to be made and that has continued to be the case for many years. Hamilton would further argue that, while there would be those who wished to make light of the imperfections found within the national system, they would in turn fail to step forward and enact the change that would improve the situation that they themselves, would feel required improvement.
Hamilton asserts the following, "..While [opponents of the Constitution] admit that the government of the United States is destitute of energy, they contend against conferring upon it those powers which are requisite to supply that energy," (Hamilton, p. 61). When it comes down to it, Hamilton's views about a league would be appear to be folded within his overall argument in favor of the possession of a document, such as the constitution that would be the primary guiding force of a more productive and succinct system of governing. Discontent would be felt on the part of Hamilton, in terms of viewing those whom he would feel as being reactive, rather than proactive. Such persons that would make an argument for the sake of making it, rather than offering up any form of answer, in regard to a potential solution(s) that would fix whatever issues that would have been present.
As he writes, "There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity, leaving nothing to further discretion, and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties," (Hamilton, p. 61-62).