NY is the correct answer. Essentially, NY fought ratification because the Anti-Federalist governor, George Clinton, stood to lose a massive amount of political influence and power if NY joined the union. Remember: under the AoC states were MUCH more powerful than the ‘central’ government, thus making governors close to modern-day presidents in their own right. Moreover, because NY was already a hub for commerce, it was functioning well (relative to the other states in the AoC, many of which were floundering).

For that reason, and several others, the founders knew that they needed NY to join, if the Constitution were to actually work. So Madison and the others focused their pen—and attention—on NY and began writing the Federalist Papers.

Factions were more politically prevalent during ratification than they are now, only because now we have well-recognized political parties that have more or less subsumed factions. At any rate, factions were essentially competing interests—this is often difficult to wrap your mind around, so the easiest way to envision it is this: would a northern merchant and a southern planter have the same interests? How about a merchant and an artisan? An artisan and an unskilled laborer? A planter and a plantation owner? All of these would belong to different “factions” in a sense, because they have different interests. The anti-federalists attempted to stir up fear by saying “well, what if ONE of those factions got control of the government! We’d be toast!” (Do you see why? What’s good for a planter is not necessarily good for a merchant, and vice versa).

The Constitution contains both positive and negative rights.  Positive rights act positively to ensure economic and social entitlements.  Negative rights on the other hand place constitutional limitations on government interference with an individual's right.  These rights make sure that people can enjoy their political and civil liberties with minimal government interference.

The necessary and proper clause states that Congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers. Any and all necessary and proper laws must be implemented in order to achieve constitutional results.

Throughout the course of the American Revolution, the colonists clung tightly to their dominant aim: the restoration of their rights and a return to their way of life before Great Britain’s abuses and the War. This goal was expressed most eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, in which the Founders gave voice to the colonists’ frustrations over the increasingly worsening pattern of disregard, violation, and presumption forced upon them by King George III and Parliament. In truth, many of the colonists had been reluctant to formally separate from England at first, believing instead that the King might be persuaded to acknowledge his government’s wrongdoings and restore them a respected position, with political and economic freedoms, within his Empire. But after the King and Parliament both summarily rejected this prospect and, indeed, continued to abuse the American colonies even further, the colonists knew that their treasured rights and laissez-faire lifestyle could only be won back through revolt. In this manner, the Revolution was actually rather conservative (as far as uprisings go), because the colonists did not desire radical or wide-sweeping changes.

Shays’ Rebellion, which broke out in 1786, was a collection of small armed uprisings by Massachusetts farmers, coordinated by ex-Revolutionary War Captain Daniel Shays. Shays and his fellow rebels were indebted farmers whose lands had been confiscated by creditors under Massachusetts’ inequitable debtor laws. Desperate to keep their lands, Shays and his men attacked several courthouses, preventing judges from finalizing foreclosure proceedings and generally inspiring other similarly disadvantaged farmers in other states to do the same. The government of Massachusetts was incapable of stopping the Rebellion, which was popular with many of the state’s citizens. In these dire straits, Massachusetts appealed to Congress for aid, but under the Articles, Congress was unable to call together a militia, let alone gather the necessary supplies and funds to sponsor such a force. Hampered by the Articles, Congress was forced to stand aside and watch the Rebellion proceed. Eventually, the Rebellion was halted by a militia put together by a private force funded by Massachusetts’ wealthy citizens, but the interval of chaos that had ensued, in which Shays and his rebels ran about unchecked, convinced many people across the new nation that the Articles of Confederation were seriously flawed and needed to be amended as soon as possible.

During the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers were faced with a debate between the large and small states. The larger states wanted representation based on population because they had more population they felt they would then also have more governmental power. The smaller states felt slighted by this concept. The debate was settled by what is called The Great Compromise creating a bicameral legislature. In one house, the House of Representatives, representation would be based on population. In the other house, the Senate, representation was set at two members per state. It is called The Great Compromise because of the balance of representation it created.

All of these powers are considered checks and balances provided, an attempt to prevent the Executive Branch from devolving into a tyrannical body. All of these powers have limits, in order to prevent tyranny from any of the other branches as well. This separation of powers, and checks and balances, is a fundamental concept of the United States Constitution and the Federal Republic system that prevails in America.

Montesquieu wrote about how to best organize government to avoid the abuse of power. His writings are the influence to separate our government into separate branches, each with its own responsibility and power to keep the others from becoming more powerful than the others. His thinking was inflential on, and largely in line, with many early constitutional thinkers, who focused on placing systems of checks and balances within the governmental framework they set up.

While auxiliary precautions do limit governmental power, there is a better answer available. The main purpose of auxiliary precautions is to divide and separate power among government institutions. They serve as a system of checks and balances to ensure that one branch of government does not attain too much power.