Most Helpful Customer Reviews
44 of 54 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Forever Unfinished, January 6, 2007
For better or worse (I think, worse), our educational system tends to paint a semi-religious portrait of the Founding Fathers and their most hallowed offspring-- the Constitution. Questioning the wisdom or perfection of either, I'm afraid, strikes too many Americans as unpatriotic, at best, and treasonous, at worst. For proof, take a look at reviewer Horton's thoroughly ignorant version of this mind-set. It's ironic that those who would honor the nation's ideals by turning our Constitution into Holy Writ, at the same time, do the most to dishonor its democratic spirit.
Levinson's brief text (180 pages, excluding the helpful appendicies), goes beyond the popular depiction to point up those provisions among the six Articles and twenty-seven Amendments whose democratic pedigree are in serious doubt. The Electoral College is probably the best known and most egregious of these. Others, perhaps less glaring, but no less questionable, include distribution of the Senate, life tenure for Supreme Court justices, excessive presidential power, and a half-dozen other dubious provisions. You may agree with some, disagree with others, but all merit second thoughts in light of decades of practical experience.
It's important to point out that Levinson does not take up the hornet's nest topic of Constitutional interpretation. There is no discussion of whether Constitutional provisions establish a Right of Privacy or a Right to Equal Access, or other questions of interpretation that tend to rile partisan emotion. Instead, the focus remains exclusively on those structural aspects requiring no judicial review, as, for example, the clear provision limiting Senatorial representation to two per-state. So readers looking for ammunition for-or-against abortion or in behalf of affirmative action, for example, should look elsewhere. In fact, Levinson's concern goes beyond interpretation to elements of the bedrock itself. (He does, however, flirt with aspects of interpretation concerning the matter of presidential powers.)
The book's tone remains soberly analytical throughout, adopting a middle course between dry detachment, on one hand, and partisan emotion, on the other. And while I think that's the proper course for making his case, it's hardly the type of rhetoric geared to arouse the public into the remedial action that remains a secondary aim of the work-- and may also account for the rather skimpy response on this particular website. Nonetheless, the work serves to remind those who will listen, that, despite much well-meaning veneration, the Constitution remains forever an unfinished document.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Promotes a critical perspective on our Constitution and republicanism, July 1, 2007
If you are looking for an unvarnished, unbiased critique of the U.S. Constitution along with some recommended changes and recommendations on how to amend, I highly recommend this book. However, this book has a couple of major flaws that cause me to not support the author's promotion of our holding a constitutional convention in the near future.
What I liked about the book is the conversational tone, the lack of rhetoric and legalese, and while the author Sanford Levinson is a proud liberal, he's extremely fair, unbiased, and respectful to Americans who may not share his political ideology. In fact, the author stays away from reviewing or promoting any amendments that are hot-button social issues like abortion, gay marriage, or current special interest attempts to establish religion.
Instead the author mostly focuses on what he believes are structural weaknesses, like the unequal representation of voters regarding how representation is structured in the Senate or when voting for President or his belief that judges should be term-limited rather than having lifetime appointments. This isn't to say the book is boring by sticking to structural issues, in fact quite the opposite, the book is filled with anecdotes like how senators from smaller states wield enormous power over senators from large states or how campaign strategies could improve if we scrapped the electoral college when voting for President and went to a popular election.
The highest compliment I can pay the author beyond a well-written book is that he changed my position on a number of issues. I embrace republican values and the fact our founders created a constitutional republic rather than a democracy; in fact I was and remain extremely suspicious of pure democracy just like the framing architects (i.e., Madison, Hamilton, et al.). However, the author makes a strong case that more democracy in regards to each voter having equal power would improve the will of the people to influence their government in a manner that doesn't risk our liberties.
I do believe Dr. Levinson's editorial decisions leaves the book flawed in two areas.
Most Americans and the media are woefully ignorant regarding what democracy is relative to what we established in 1787, which was a constitutional republic especially in terms of how liberty is impacted by each form of government. These differences were a primary concern of James Madison's when he evaluated different forms of government and created and successfully introduced the framework of a constitutional republic at the Philadelphia Convention (see Wikipedia page for "constitutional republic" for a pretty good definition and comparison). Indeed, Madison focused strictly on past republics to construct the framework of our government and often dismissed democracies as little better than monarchies.
I believe Dr. Levinson should have included a chapter early in the book that discussed the differences between our republican form of government upon ratification and how its evolved towards a more democratic form of government, and the benefits but also the costs and risks of continued democratization in terms of individual liberty which are much better protected in a republic than a demoracy.
This leads to the second weakness of the book. While writing the book, Dr. Levinson obviously had a lot of concern thrown at him by liberals (pg. 174) regarding the frightening prospect of a constitutional convention in which the results of such a convention severely limited or eradicated many of our rights so unpopular with social conservatives (i.e., equal protection, judicial power to protect our rights from unconstitutional legislation, the 9th amendment, establishment clause, and full incorporation of the 14th amendment).
Dr. Levinson calls for a constitutional convention in hopes his concerns are addressed, while failing to address the fact that some interest groups will certainly leverage this opportunity to meet their political agenda as well that directly contradict the founding ideals of liberty by the framers. In fact he correctly terms this liberal concern "Madisonian" for reasons provided above.
His response to what I believe is a valid concern by liberals is a mere one paragraph that is unsupported by any empirical evidence, it's merely a vague notion held by Dr. Levinson's faith in the democratic process in spite of our continued inability to currently hold meaningful debates free of rhetorical fallacies on other hot-button subjects (e.g., gay marriage, where conservatives refuse to even discuss equal protection rights, instead the Media allows them to get away with opposing gay marriage due to their personal religious beliefs without challenging them on equal protection grounds).
These two flaws are not enough to stop me from recommending this book. The book really helped me to more critically analyze many features of our Constitution that do prevent a more optimal form of government, features I took for granted can not be changed where Levinson effectively challenges our inertia. The book also opened the door to my evaluating the Constitution in a more critical manner, which I greatly appreciate Levinson doing for me.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
33 of 42 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Where is the First Chapter?, April 18, 2007
According to Levinson "The Constitution is both insufficiently democratic, [...] and significantly dysfunctional" and therefore "we should not longer express our blind devotion to it". Levinson wants the reader to join him in a call for a new constitutional convention, and "Our Undemocratic Constitution" is the argument for that cause. Each reader must decide if Levinson succeeds.
Levinson takes the reader through the many shortcomings, pitfalls, and inadequacies of our federal Constitution. Regardless of opinion "Our Undemocratic Constitution is wanting, the first of which is a First Chapter.
Levinson presents the United States as "a country that professes to believe in democracy." Unfortunately, Levinson never presents the reader with his clear idea of democracy let along explain why it is better than what the United States is - a Constitution Republic, or a "constraint" democracy (professions notwithstanding). It has been over 150 years since the use of the phrase, "The United states ARE..." and even more years since a person called himself or herself a "Virginian" or "Carolinian". Presidential power and federalism has grown dramatically, but can we so easily say that we are now one big country and no longer a collection of "states"? Perhaps we can, but not without explanation. Unfortunately, Levison provides no explanation of his democracy and why it is superior and begins his book with the assumed premise that Federalism and a more direct democracy (?) is implicitly better.
The Journey takes the reader through unequal representation, bicameralism, the Electoral College, the tenure of federal judges, and the process required to amend the Constitution. During that journey the reader will meet some Straw men. The potential of a "Constitutional dictatorship" as a result of a "lame duck presidency" WAS an issue before 1933, before the 20th amendment to the Constitution. The inability to remove "disabled president" is noteworthy before 1967 and before the ratification of the 25th amendment, but not today. Levison freely admits this to be the case, yet still presents these as argument to throw out the baby because the bathwater WAS dirty 40 years ago.
The journey is filled with many, perhaps too many, assumed premise, "I suspect that most person are unconvinced..." pg 65, "one could easily read..." pg 71 "If one reads...which is certainly the most plausible reading, then it could well be..."pg 72 "It should be obvious that..." pg 87. "Easily read", "most plausible", "obvious that? Perhaps...but not without more.
Our Undemocratic Constitution does a fine job of shining the light on many aspects of our Constitution that are wanting. Levinson writes for the layman. It is because of this that Levinson should be more cautious and provide the reader with a first Chapter and more than the 180pg that are presented.
Levinson fails to address the many counter arguments to his position that exist both today and in 1787. He also fails to sufficiently differentiate between dirty bathwater and a dirty baby. Our Undemocratic Constitution addresses the dysfunctional of our current constitution without discussing what a future constitution and the process of getting there might look like. This is a deliberate choice by Levinson, but by doing so Levinson avoids the hardest task of all, addressing the arduous task of getting 300,000,000 people from 50 states to agree. Perhaps the words of Benjamin Franklin, following the singing of the "current" Constitution, provides a critical question for a reader:
"I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views..." September, 17th, 1787
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
