by Sanford Levinson
|
| List Price: | $19.95 |
| Amazon Price: | $17.95 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. |
| You Save: | $2.00 (10%) |
| Average Rating: |  |
| Lowest New Price: | $15.35 |
| Availablitiy: | Usually ships in 24 hours |
|
 |
|
Product Description
Levinson argues that too many of our Constitution's provisions promote either unjust or ineffective government. Under the existing blueprint, we can neither rid ourselves of incompetent presidents nor assure continuity of government following catastrophic attacks. Less important, perhaps, but certainly problematic, is the appointment of Supreme Court judges for life. Adding insult to injury, the United States Constitution is the most difficult to amend or update of any constitution currently existing in the world today. Democratic debate leaves few stones unturned, but we tend to take our basic constitutional structures for granted. Levinson boldly challenges the American people to undertake a long overdue public discussion on how they might best reform this most hallowed document and construct a constitution adequate to our democratic values.
"Admirably gutsy and unfashionable."
--Michael Kinsley, The New York Times
"Bold, bracingly unromantic, and filled with illuminating insights. He accomplishes an unlikely feat, which is to make a really serious argument for a new constitutional convention, one that is founded squarely on democratic ideals."
--Cass R. Sunstein, The New Republic
"Everyone who cares about how our government works should read this thoughtful book."
--Washington Lawyer
Customers who bought this item also bought
Average Customer Review:
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:
 Why we need a Second Constitutional Convention, 2008-12-11
Sanford Levinson has written an excellent essay which suggests that a Second Constitutional Convention is required to restore American democracy. He is one of the few Americans smart enough to help craft a new document based on the current one. On my authority as a private citizen, I have summoned a convention to convene in Philadelphia in Independence Hall beginning July 4th, 2009, and I've invited Dr. Levinson to be a delegate, but as of this writing, he has failed to respond to my invitation. Please post a comment below urging him to reconsider.
What follows is my current list of flaws with the current Constitution -- many pointed out initially by Dr. Levinson:
(1) Awkward transition between presidents; from election day to the inauguration of the next president, there are effectively two presidents -- one in office, one awaiting office, and this allows confusion.
(2) Under-representation of voters from populous states in the Senate.
(3) DC voters lack representation.
(4) Supreme Court has become a politicized institution. This dates back to Marshall's Marbury v. Madison decision in which the Court usurped authority, not granted by the Constitution, to strike down laws if it found them "against the constitution". The Framers never intended for the judiciary to have such sweeping power. The Supreme Court, over time, has failed to protect the federal structure (with state governments having the most economic regulatory authority) and instead promoted power shifting to Washington. The Supreme Court has made highly political choices, such as Roe v. Wade, which should have been left to individual state governments or national lawmakers.
(5) Original Constitution fails to include a right of privacy.
(6) Possibility of a military dictatorship should a significant terrorist attack happen such as a catastrophic attack on Congress.
(7) The Electoral college system is cumbersome and confusing.
(8) Popular election of senators. Here's a situation in which the original constitution was right in my view (letting state governments choose Senators) but it was changed by an amendment. It's important for state governments to choose Senators to give state governments a voice in the national government.
(9) Inability to get rid of an incompetent president quickly. Examples: Wilson (suffered from an economic malady); possibly Roosevelt in last years in office; Bush (clearly incompetent choice to attack Iraq).
(10) Life tenure for unelected Supreme Court judges. 15 or 18 year term limits would be better in my view.
(11) The Ninth amendment has been seriously ignored.
Many of these flaws have been cited by other constitutional scholars and there is fairly widespread agreement that they're serious and need fixing.
British constitutional scholar Adam Tomkins identifies a prime weakness in America's constitution -- that the prime role of checking government is supposedly handled by the judiciary, and not the legislature. He thinks the judiciary is ill-suited to rein in government ministers since it must wait for a court case to bubble up before it can act; plus, judges are not popularly elected and are therefore not accountable to the public. He thinks Britain's system -- where the Prime Minister must defend choices each week in a 30 minute meeting before Parliament -- is superior to America's. I agree.
I see more serious flaws with America's governmental structure than the list above. The foreign policy architecture is deeply flawed -- entrusting too much power in one overburdened official (the president, who has both domestic and foreign policy duties). America's foreign policy can only be as good as the president. An incompetent president or one distracted with domestic matters can cause America's foreign policy to be mindless and erratic. Any intelligent review over the past 50 years of America's foreign policy would see a long list of obvious mistakes such as Vietnam, Iraq (Bevin Alexander's book lists many mistakes) along with successes -- it's a mixed bag. In the past, America could get away with this mindlessness because of its size and wealth; but in the nuclear age, foreign policy can't be an experiment, a happenstance, rather it must be consistently sound and smart. So I propose a structure more like the Roman Senate (during the Republic years). It rarely made mistakes. It avoided unnecessary wars. It consistently rewarded friends and consistently punished allies. But to fix this structure, it requires another convention.
Further, the United States lacks an intelligent strategy to prevent terrorism. The Constitution is partly to blame here. It needs to confront the whole issue of anonymous movement in public -- that is, how can we identify movement while preserving privacy? This is the key to preventing terrorism in my view. I argue in my book "Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism" that there is no adequate way to prevent serious terrorism without overhauling the Constitution.
Today's US government is highly corrupt. Power has shifted to the president and is dangerously concentrated in this one office. The executive can essentially legislate by using a vast bureaucracy of agencies that are largely unaccountable to the public and hidden from debate. Presidents have begun issuing "signing statements" -- a fairly recent innovation -- when they describe how they intend to interpret a law made by Congress, which effectively puts an executive twist on a law. The most egregious sign of concentrated executive power is, of course, the power to start wars without Congressional approval (Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (there was a token vote)). The Constitution explicitly gave the war-making power to Congress. So why does the president have this power?
One more huge flaw: citizenship isn't defined. I think citizenship should be a contract between individual and state with specific, enumerated responsibilities and privileges, such as paying taxes, serving in the military, police protection, Bill of Rights guarantees, voting, serving on juries, and so forth. I think it should be an active relation which is chosen by a person and declared in a public ceremony (I write more about this in my book). Right now, we become citizens automatically if we're born here and we have the dubious accomplishment of becoming eighteen years old.
So, for these reasons and other reasons, I'm advocating a Second Constitutional Convention to fix these flaws, and as a private citizen, I am summoning delegates to Independence Hall in Philadelphia beginning July 4th, 2009.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
 If the last decade isn't proof enough..., 2008-04-24
Thank you Dr. Levinson for a genuinely thoughtful argument concerning our constitution and its deep need for substantial revision. Point by point, he moves from the undeserved reverence Americans have for this document to its faults. He then suggested much needed reforms.
Levinson insists that the Electoral College should be abandoned so that the people, not the states elect our president. His points are well considered, although he fails to explain that Electoral College was adopted because, in 1787, each of the states was considered a sovereign nation loosely bound to the union recently defined as the United States of America.
I was especially convinced by the comparison he makes between our system and the Parliamentary system when it comes to ineffective presidents. The latter permits a president who has lost the support of most of his constituents to be removed from office. Our system does not. Like our fellow democracies, we should be able to remove a president at will rather than having to wait out a pre-determined administrative term.
Levinson also addresses other equally relevant issues related to our constitution and does so in a balanced manner. He helps us to realize that our nation was created as a republic, not a democracy, and the constitution actually serves to block democracy in numerous ways.
I recommend Our Undemocratic Constitution to all politically inclined Americans. This is not only food for thought, but food for action.
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
 Dissapointed at clarity of thoughts, 2008-04-23
Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It)Although I believe the author is on the right track about how our constitution needs to be changed to make it more democratic, I found his arguments to be somewhat fuzzy. This is a shame since it is such an important topic.
5 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
 Typical Liberal Schlock, 2008-04-09
First of all Mr. Steele, Scooter Libby was NOT pardoned, he had his sentenced commuted...there is a difference.
Secondly, everything espoused in Levinson's book would curiously help liberal (read: Democrat) candidates, legislators, and/or movements, NGOs and "activists."
It is true the problem with the senate is age old; the senate has been a thorn in the side of the executive since 1789. Direct election of senators was a terrible idea; we can thank the populists for that. When senators were chosen by state legislatures, the senators represented the STATE'S interest against encroachment by the federal government. Today the opposite is true.
Your love for ex-Klansman Sen. Bob Byrd is telling. Talk about an obstructionist senator from a small inconsequential state. While it is true that both parties have devolved into agencies that mainly fleece the populace.
Nurturing entrepreneurs will never occur in a country that is heavily legislated and union driven. It's a sad fact. Our middle class manufacturing base is not compatible with globalization, and will be completely gone in the next generation.
A constitutional convention is a pipe dream no matter how many states offer their citizens a review.
Your knee jerk hatred of Dick Cheney is telling. His crimes are no worse than Al Gore's, who along with his boss, sold the US out to China in the 90's. Where were all the unions and progressives who supported this duo then? Hmm?
Our constitution was made difficult to amend for a GOOD reason. Imagine all the wrenching changes it would have gone through the past 200 years had it been easier to amend.
Senator Byrd again. Well, your man Byrd is one of the most profligate spenders of federal tax monies in the history of that august body. He brings billions into tiny West Virginia. How is he not part of the problem?? Just because he stands up and denounces President Bush? Yeah, I though so.
It's true people do not rule this country. They are sheep. As long as they can go to the mall and the movies they are happy. It's quite obvious the powers that be have figured this out. It is funny how you think removing President Bush should be made a priority, but removing Bill Clinton because he lied to a grand jury is not so important. Very telling indeed.
The reason campaigns do not pick a transitional cabinet is because they would immediately come under scrutiny and then be attacked by opposing forces and the media. All their backgrounds would become fodder and fair game for disgracing the candidates.
David Walker is a fine man. People don't want to heed his siren because it would affect their snouts in the trough...I'm talking about regular Americans and the politicians who are afraid of them.
Ending wasteful spending would mean the end to your favorite, Sen. Byrd to start with; the worst spender of the bunch. Balancing the budget would call for extreme cuts in entitlements. You think the "activist" groups would stand for that??
Not having the VP assume the presidency upon the latter's death is ridiculous. What are we supposed to have, some star chamber choose the next president and abrogate the will of the people?? Seems like I heard so much talk like that during Clinton's impeachment. Yet now you and Levinson propose the same thing.
Immigrants more loyal to Israel??? You meant Mexico. The borders have broken and will ultimately lead to the demise of the US. Those of us who have gotten dual citizenships will lead the mass migration OUT of the US, eroding the tax and brain base.
I don't think we can take any recommendation from Denmark. They're about to be overrun by a minority of Muslims, which pose a greater threat to democracy than our hapless House of Representatives.
It's true, congress needs a wholesale change, as well as the executive. However, you ain't gonna get it this November no matter whose majorities grow, or what idiot senator is elected.
What will it take to get us mad? Well, it will begin with the young people in this country having a living standard nowhere near their parents. Once Americans can't go to the mall, it will be all over with.
Oh, and when China, Japan, and the rest stop buying our T-bills, we won't have to worry about cutting entitlements and the defense budget. That will kinda happen on it's own at that point.
Bravo.
7 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
A book based on silly assumptions, 2008-04-02
Levinson is a law professor in Austin who has written a short book of how "undemocratic" our Constitution is. This is supposed to be a real revelation as he covers many examples of how he defines "democracy" in the modern era.
Yes the small states get the same two Senators that the big states get, which I guess is why the Founding Fathers called the document "The Great Compromise" when it was adopted. Levinson makes the assumption that somehow a document written as a compromise over 200 years ago would somehow not be subject to even more compromises in a new constitutional convention, especially given the massive differences in how Americans look at the political leadership of both major parties today.
While I find some of Levinson's arguments interesting, underlying this book is the assumption that everyone in the USA would join in a new "more democratic" union if the document establishing the country were to be so radically modified.
I suspect a more likely scenario would be the secessionists Levinson dismisses would actually control the day and the states with the smaller populations would join together to form a new country with political leaders more to their liking and the more populous states would then form the parenthesis "blue" country divided by the "red middle" of the former USA.
And since most of the military comes from the "red states" and any attempt to prevent the breakup of the country would fall to a military that has few members from the University of Austin or the Upper West Side of NY city, not to mention Hollywood and other liberal bastions, who is going to prevent this from happening? I doubt Professor Levinson even owns a gun.
Levinson has written half a book, making assumptions that hold as much water as Jimmy Carter's decision to start the war in Afghanistan in 1979 in order to draw the Soviets into their "Vietnam" which was an even more half-baked idea. We will live with the consequences of that decision for generations to come, and Levinson's ideas in this book are just as silly, and just as dangerous.
Price is accurate as of the date/time indicated. Prices and product availability are subject to change. Any price displayed on the Amazon website at the time of purchase will govern the sale of this product.
|
Store Categories
|