A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country [Hardcover]

Larry J. Sabato (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0802716210 | ISBN-13: 978-0802716217 | Publication Date: October 2, 2007 | Edition: First Edition

"No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs to the living generation."--Thomas Jefferson

"A constitution intended to endure for years to come [is] consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."--John Marshall

 

"This book will ask readers to set aside their own political loyalties, to look past the current 'values' debates and hot-button issues, to consider this very real possibility: that the failure of the nation to update the Constitution and the structure of government it originally bequeathed to us is at the root of our current political dysfunction."--Larry Sabato

 

The political book of the year, from the acclaimed founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

 

Larry Sabato has one of the most visionary and fertile political minds in America. Like so many, he is increasingly alarmed at the growing dysfunction and unfairness of our political system. To solve this, to restore the equity for ordinary citizens that is at the core of our democratic society, we must take a radical step--to revise the Constitution, the document that guides our political process, for until some of its outmoded provisions are reformed, we will only have more of the same.
The original framers fully expected the Constitution to be regularly revised by succeeding generations to reflect the country's changing needs; yet, apart from the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, it has only been amended 17 times in 220 years, and most of those amendments had minor ramifications. Today, partisan gridlock dominates Washington; 17 percent of voters elect a majority of senators; the presidency has assumed unprecedented and unintended powers; while politicians spend as much time campaigning for office as they do governing; and average Americans feel more and more disconnected from the political process so that half or more don't vote in many elections--all of which would have horrified Jefferson and Madison.

A More Perfect Constitution presents twenty three creative and dynamic proposals to reinvigorate American governance at a time when such change is urgently needed. Combining idealism and pragmatism, and with full respect for the original document, Sabato's thought-provoking ideas range from the length of the president's term in office and the number and terms of Supreme Court justices to the structure of Congress, the vagaries of the antiquated Electoral College, and a compelling call for universal national service--all laced through with the history behind each issue and their potential impact on the lives of ordinary people.
Aware that such changes won't happen easily, Sabato urges us nonetheless to engage in the debate and discussion they will surely engender. As we head towards a presidential election year, no book is more relevant or significant than his.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Sabato, founder of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, ventures bravely into the controversial waters of constitutional reform. Sabato argues that the founders never intended the Constitution to be timeless, but rather understood that government structures, ossified by constitutional neglect [can] become fundamentally unfair and tilted to those already in power. Sabato's reforms are consistent with the values he believes underpin the Constitution—fairness, idealism, pragmatism and focus on the needs of the present and the future—while attempting to mitigate social inequities. His lucid if unorthodox suggestions include a single six-year presidential term that could be extended another two years by referendum; limiting federal and Supreme Court justices to a 15-year term; a larger House of Representatives that would, among other benefits, allow for greater diversity in Congress. His reforms encompass the entire citizenry, who would be required to perform two years of national civilian or military service in what he calls a Bill of Responsibilities. While there's room for skepticism and unintended consequences in some of his suggestions, Sabato makes strong, cogent arguments. (Oct.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

The founder and director of the renowned Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, Larry J. Sabato has been called "the Dr. Phil of American politics." He has appeared on every national television and radio program, including 60 Minutes, the Today Show, Hardball, The O'Reilly Factor, and Nightline. A Rhodes scholar, he received his doctorate in politics from Oxford, and has been on the faculty of UVA since 1978. He is the author of countless articles and some twenty books, including Feeding Frenzy: Attack Journalism & American Politics, The Rise of Political Consultants: New Ways of Winning Elections, and most recently The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of George W. Bush's Presidency, and he coanchored the BBC's coverage of the 2006 election. In 2002, the University of Virginia gave him its highest honor, the Thomas Jefferson Award, given annually to one person since 1955.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 352 pages
• Publisher: Walker & Company; First Edition edition (October 2, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0802716210
• ISBN-13: 978-0802716217
• Product Dimensions: 9.4 x 6.2 x 1.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (36 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #501,954 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

49 of 55 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Very Important Read, Especially Now, October 20, 2007

By 

Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty (Port Orford, OR United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country (Hardcover)

One certainly has to admire Larry Sabato whether one agrees with him or not. Anyone suggesting that the U.S. Constitution is "out of date" and in need of reform is bound to enrage many, if not most, of the millions of traditional political conservatives in this country. They not only oppose the very idea of a "living" Constitution and tend to support the view that the Constitution is just fine as it is, but are "originalists" (that is, what was the original intent of the Founders?) when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. Sabato, however, in "A More Perfect Constitution" argues that the U.S. Constitution is in need of an upgrade and he presents twenty-three proposals for its reformation. Despite the fact that the title of the book is problematic (how does one make something "more perfect" when "perfect" already means "without any defect"?), I submit that Sabato's book needs to be read by every citizen of this country who is concerned about its future. The plain truth is: The Constitution as handed down to us and in its present form does not meet the political needs of the nation as it now exists. (Sorry, my fellow political conservatives.)

Generally speaking, I think Sabato's proposals are worth considering and should be the subject of a wide-ranging public debate. (There is one of his proposals, however, which I find especially troubling and I'll get to that one in a minute.) The very calling of a constitutional convention would be controversial, to be sure, particularly in this current period of political polarization. The apparent power of so many special-interest groups today would also deter many citizens from supporting the call for a constitutional convention. Who would be the delegates? How would they be chosen? What would be the requirements? What would prohibit someone from being a delegate? How would the so-called great divide between red states and blue states play into the process? What influence would right-wing radio talk show hosts or left-wing Internet bloggers have on the delegates during the reformation process? I think these items would be of concern to most centrist-thinking Americans. But I believe they can be resolved if people are willing to use some good old American common sense (sometimes lost but not forgotten).

There is little doubt in my mind that the office of the president is due for a serious makeover. Over the past few generations the nation's president has accumulated too much power and Congress has not done an effective job of oversight as it is constitutionally required to do. Four years for the president is too short a term and eight years is too long. Sabato's recommendation of a six-year presidential term seems reasonable to me. The president also desperately needs the line-item veto as suggested by Sabato. Furthermore, there is no good reason today to maintain the prohibition against non-natural-born presidents and Sabato's recommendation of twenty years of citizenship for this office appears reasonable, although I would have suggested twenty-five years (just don't ask me why).

More important, in my opinion, is the structure of the Congress. I don't believe that the Founding Fathers intended the creation of a class of "professional politicians" who would be elected to the House or the Senate and then spend their entire life occupying a chair there, spending the bulk of their time running for reelection, becoming pawns of special-interest groups, and enriching themselves at the public trough. Therefore, term limits for Congress must be built into any new constitution. (Yes, I know all the arguments against term limits, but the arguments in favor of them are more compelling and it's not like it's a matter of some absolute fundamental political principle.) And Sabato's suggestion that the House be expanded to around 1,000 members -- for better, closer representation -- is worthy of serious consideration.

Now for the new federal courts. It is completely asinine, in my opinion, for federal judges to have lifetime appointments and especially so for the Supreme Court justices. Sabato's recommendation of a single, nonrenewable term of fifteen years for all federal judges (including the Supremes) is more than reasonable, although I would have recommended a somewhat lesser term and a definite retirement age. Expanding the size of the Supreme Court from nine to twelve, as Sabato suggests, would get my approval but I suspect that many will object to the increase, recalling FDR's attempt to "pack" the court so he could get his Depression-era policies approved. But this would not be an attempt to pack the court in the name of some special interest, but merely to create a more representative court.

As I said above, most of Sabato's proposals appear reasonable to me and some of them are much needed reforms. There is one, however, that I have to take issue with and that is his suggestion for Universal National Service (UNS), a constitutional requirement that all U.S. citizens of sound mind and body would be required (read "forced") to give two years of service to the nation in some military or civilian capacity. Now, I can understand the rationale behind this recommendation. I'm not sure I'm willing to buy into it. He knows this will be controversial for he notes: "Libertarians find this proposal especially objectionable, insisting that governmental power over the individual must be kept to an absolute minimum.... But,...the libertarian approach ignores the substantial benefits not just for society but for the individual in the commitment to service."

I could immediately feel my own physical reaction when I read his UNS proposal. To libertarians, even moderate ones like I am, the idea of government-enforced service raises a red flag. The notion of government-enforced service, in our view, tends to fall into the same category as that of the personal income tax, which is why libertarians generally oppose such a tax. Both ideas, we generally argue, rest on the proposition that the government (or State, as some of us prefer to say) "own" us as human beings; it is a type of "slavery," the State claiming supremacy over our minds, bodies, sweat, blood, and tears to do with it what it will. If the State can demand two years of your life, it owns you. If you are paying fifty percent in personal income taxes, the State owns fifty percent of your mental and physical labor. Libertarians generally subscribe to a principle of personal sovereignty and argue for voluntary, consensual, and mutually-agreed-to contractual arrangements.

On the other hand, this does not mean that the idea of Universal National Service needs to be rejected outright. This one, like all the other proposals put forth by Sabato, should be debated in a public forum with input from all points on the political spectrum. But libertarians have a basic mistrust of government which is, by the way, historically justified. The political scientist Dr. R. J. Rummel has amply documented the history of what he calls "democide" (death by government) which in the twentieth century resulted in the mass killing of tens of millions of ordinary human beings by their own government. (And, need I say, the American government has not been immune from this phenomena in its own history.)

So, out of twenty-three proposals, I have no serious problem with twenty-two of them suggested by Sabato. In a constitutional convention, if I were a delegate (unlikely!), I might suggest some changes to his recommendations as far as the details are concerned. But, in general, I think he's on the right track. I give this book the highest recommendation, not because I agree with everything that the author says, but because I think he has important things to say that all citizens ought to hear and think about. If nothing else, "A More Perfect Constitution" will spark some much needed debate. And that alone makes Professor Sabato's book a worthwhile read.

16 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Washington Said We Should Fix It, December 28, 2007

By 

The Spinozanator "Spinozanator" (Harlingen, Texas) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country (Hardcover)

Here's my take on it: The Founders put together the Constitution under intense pressure working from May 25th through September 17th, 1787. They took off every Sunday and five other days (total 20 days off) in a span of 112 days. The result was a remarkable document that none of them admitted to being satisfied with. It was chock full of compromises but it was the best they thought they could do - given their time constraints and the diverse needs of their varied constituents.

Since then it has been justly exalted and used as a benchmark for other nations' constitutions around the world, but compared to these other constitutions, it has undergone the least change. The founders themselves were quick to suggest that change be applied liberally and frequently to their document. This mentality was well represented by Washington's words, "We...do not contend that it is free from imperfections...there is a Constitutional door open for it [change]...I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."

Author Sabato is a frequent political writer and long-time professor of government and political science. He presents a strong case for a new Constitutional Convention - the founders wisely make provisions for a mechanism for changes to the Constitution outside of Congress - and presents his suggested changes for discussion. Sabato knows his list would not be close to a final product and recommends three similar books that also include lists of recommended adjustments - with only a little overlap among their lists. In his lengthy notes, he recommends: Robinson's "Reforming American Government," Lazare's "The Frozen Republic," and Levinson's "Our Undemocratic Constitution" - so by no means is he alone in making the general argument advocating constitutional revision, although none are seriously tinkering with the basic design. Constitutional scholars have been thinking and writing about it ever since the founding of this country.

Sabato discusses each of his 23 proposals in depth, grouped into seven major categories, some of them objects of a couple of centuries of valid criticism. Then he outlines them briefly on pages 225 - 229 (a good place to start). Ten of the 23 issues addressed are:

* Congressional term limits
* Supreme Court and federal judge term limits
* Power of the president to unilaterally declare war
* Gerrymandering (partisan redistricting for House elections, named after Gerry when the tactic was first used in the 2nd or 3rd presidential election)
* Presidential primaries
* Electoral college reform
* All former Presidents and Vice-Presidents (if they want it) automatically get a participating seat in the Senate
* Balanced Budget Amendment, with appropriate safeguards and escape clauses
* Line-item veto for the President
* A naturalized American, having been a resident for 20 years, is eligible for the presidency

While no-one is likely to buy into all of Sabato's ideas, I would be surprised to find a voter who can't find improvements in at least some of them. Many of these thorns-in-our-side result from the founders simply not being able to predict the future, particularly political parties. Legislators have been unwilling to correct the deficiencies that apply to Congress because the correction would do away with the very mechanisms that get them easily re-elected - my simplistic assessment that bows to human nature. Other issues have not been resolved (by amendment) except when a crisis situation developed, partly due to a reverence about the timelessness of the document that none of the founders would have predicted nor advocated.

For each recommendation, Sabato gives inside information that might make you "not so sure" of your pet fix - for example, term limits. This is a concept that has clear backing from the public. Fortunately, we now have evidence as to whether it works as advertised. The California, Michigan, Louisiana, and Nevada state legislatures have all enacted term limits and the early results are in, with unexpectedly mixed results. The diversity composition of the legislatures (supposed to improve) didn't change much; intensive training programs for new legislators appeared and legislatures were about equally as productive (neutralizing the objections that so many new legislators at one time would slow down legislation); the power of the majority parties increased (whereas the idea was to create a better balance of power); the legislators forced to retire promptly filled other political seats at local, state, national, or lobbying levels ("musical political chair" phenomenon - absolute numbers of career politicians increased as opposed to the desired and predicted decrease). Term limits did not diminish the amount of lobbying - shrewd lobbyists just adapted their tactics. When the rules of the game changed, parties and special interests followed suit.

Eight states have taken it upon themselves to correct the problems of gerrymandering. In their wildest nightmares, the founders could not have predicted today's continuously redistricted House, where elaborate computer programs permit politicians to carve up the map precisely to protect every incumbent, while draining the competition out of House elections. Several different nonpartisan methods of redistricting have been instituted by these eight states, some putting the partisan computer programs to non-corrupt usage. Unlike the mixed results from term limits, more competitive elections have resulted with a more diverse House of Representatives. As a side benefit, resultant districts no longer look like a geographic hockey stick. Intense politics and entrenched interests have stalled similar efforts in many other states.

I'll bet you will be enlightened and fascinated. "A More Perfect Constitution" (imperfect word usage lifted directly from the Constitution) is a timely book, especially for the younger generation. Sabato thinks it might take a generation to accomplish a Constitutional Convention and that the internet and its blogsites are perfect forums to accelerate the process. Should one ever successfully be called and carried out, he suggests that an automatic 100 year Constitutional Convention be one of the new directives. Considering that Jefferson advocated a revolution every 19 years - so that each new generation didn't have to carry the baggage of the previous generation - a re-alignment, tune-up, and lube-job every 100 years sounds pretty conservative.

DB

29 of 35 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Constitution for the New Milennium, October 6, 2007

By 

Bill Hobby (Houston, TX) - See all my reviews

This review is from: A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country (Hardcover)

Larry Sabato, America's best-known political scientist, says we need a Constitutional Convention and has a lot of ideas about how that convention could improve all branches of our government if three-fourths of the States approve.:
Executive: One six-or-maybe-eight-year term for the President.
Senate: 135 members (larger states get more). Terms coterminous with President. Former Presidents and Vice-Presidents to be national Senators.
House: Many more (1,000?) members. Three-year terms. (Congress can increase size at of the House today.)
Electoral College: Mend it, don't end it. Add seventy-four electors.
Judges: Fifteen-year terms. Retirement at 75-80.
Add: Term limits, Universal National Service, balanced budget amendment. (The budget discussion is excellent.)