Please accept this in a positive way.
The thesis seems muddled — which 2 statements (bullets maybe?) and how do they stand against each other?
You have all the data but it seems slapped together rather than constructed.
May I suggest you go back and outline the document, then post it so that it is clear what the comparison/contrasting arguments are.
The underlying premise is great — the delivery might need burnishing.
This offering is an attempt at brevity compared to my usual presentations which is why comments on presentation are much appreciated.
Usually I spend more time on the idea of the original right of those who made the Constitution a Law and what that means for the meaning of same. Simply, the legislatures of the several States were presented with a consistent view by those arguing for the meaning of the text (including Hamilton) and this has since been misrepresented as merely as Madison's view. This advice given to their consent is the only thing that they could have agreed to and therefore the only thing that could be the Law.
Yet after ratification, as if he were Sovereign to make Law, we find Hamilton contradicting even his own previous statements. People act as if the fact that it is “Hamilton” is so very important that it negates the significance of WHEN he spoke. Timeliness is important and I often challenge people which Hamilton is right: the one offering advice to those with the right of consent or the Treasury Secretary spouting off after ratification was a done deal?
I've even likened the actual ratification of the Constitution to that moment when, in a wedding, the assembled host are asked to “speak now or forever hold their peace.” As Treasury Secretary Hamilton resembles that ill mannered wedding guest who bad mouths the bride after the vows have been taken (when he should just have kept his trap shut).