To Ratify or Nor? That is a question being asked over the centuries, and the answers have been the cause of serious controversies. Just like the founding fathers debated what was best for the country, by ratifying a Constutution. Today people still debate whether it was right or not to ratify the Constitution. What do you think? Today people have been able to see the benefits of having a constitution and it was proved many years ago when the Articles of Confederation did not work that a stronger central power was the solution to a better government. Of course a central power that would have checks and balances, there would not be any advantages of taking over the government. Many debates are being made, the antifederalists say the constitution is bringing a central government with too much power. “And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government.“ But even though the constitution gives a certain amount of power to the central government it still created a method of checks and balances to prevent a future dictatorship. Also it is known all the troubles that the country went through by giving supreme power to the states. And the constitution still makes clear the states rights. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” In the constitution the government has power but not enough, it is seen that the governed will have the right to accept or not a governement. Another issue discussed was that the Antifederalists believed that it was necessary to have a certain writes written.