A Call for a Constitutional Convention to repair a dysfunctional national government
585100
I enjoyed reading this book because it accurately points out the problems of 21st century america.  However, the authors fail to address the central problem in their book , which they describe in detail,  namely, that Congress has become  so dysfunctional in it's lack of performance of the few duties assigned to it in Article I; and furthermore that Congress has also violated most of the limits placed upon it's limited jurisdiction listed in Article I ( see Our Republican Constitution by Randy Barnett). [Thus, I gave it only 3 stars]. Therefore,  instead of writing amendments to fix the problem with Congress ( I reject a parlamentary system to replace Congress) which the authors allude to as an aside),  the authors instead propose to give the President the authority to propose his own adjenda subject to an up or down vote by Congress.  That would not be so bad, as a separate reform in and of itself, if the authors had also proposed additional amendments to the old Constitution that would impose new incentives upon members of Congress designed to persuade them to perform their jobs and also impose new penalties on members of Congress for failing to perform their jobs.  The question all Americans need to think about concerns representation.  Who should Congress represent and why?  How can we create new incentives to enhance the likelihood that Congress will start performing the job of representing the average american citizen rather that catering to the special interest lobbyist , corporation, union, foreign government , or minority voting block of citizens who want something from their government?  The other question is also:  who will pay for the government benefits?  Remember, despite what a political candidate or party says in order to win your vote, there are no free lunches in providing government programs to people.  Somebody will eventually pay for that government program.
  WE need to fix Congress and hold it accountable for either it's non actions or its bad legislation.  Legislation which does not solve a problem but only buys votes, wastes taxpayer dollars, and let's the problem worsen over time because congress is too afraid to anger a segment of the American voting population.  That type of conduct cannot continue.
I recommend you read the book and come up with some of your own reform ideas.
Terry Jennrich
3905202
This book is an easy and quick read that not only outlines the problems of our existing government, but offers solutions to them.  Anyone interested in political science, or anyone who would like to take an active role in turning the country around and getting back to a more constitutional form of government should read this book.
829887
Dr. Arnn discusses why the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution do not contradict each other as progressives, academics and journalists claim.

Our system of checks and balances among the three branches of our government were designed to prevent the abuses of power that fostered the Revolutionary War. However, our government now has a fourth branch, the Administrative branch. Some present day leaders want to change the Constitution because this Administrative branch is not authorized under our Constitutional system.

This huge Administrative branch is a source of our nation's out-of-control spending, loss of freedoms and loss of control by we the people. Consequences will increase if we the people do not regain the representative government our founders created.

The author reminds us that we the people were intended to control the government as well as the government control certain human behaviors. At present we have no real control over the fourth branch, the Administrative system. This branch makes laws (regulations), supplanting the role of Congress. This branch administers penalties (fines) the function of the judicial branch.

Our Declaration and Constitution are unique in world history. Larry Arnn's arguments for not changing these documents are well reasoned, fully researched and corroborated by our Founders writings.

The last half of this book contains copies of the Declaration, Constitution and various Federalists papers documenting the truths Dr. Arnn presents.

Dr. Arnn, the President of Hillsdale College, teaches history, the Constitution and other classes. He has been published multiple times.

Hillsdale College regularly supports educational lectures and seminars on national and world problems, and refuses government funding.
1897447
Recently I ended up on the internet reading Madison's extensive notes on the Convention.  Interesting, but the relentlessly redundant speeches using language of 220 years ago were too much for me.  Enter "The Summer of 1787."

The Founders put the Constitution together 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 time constraints and the diverse needs of the states they represented.

Since then it has been justly exalted and used as a benchmark for other nations' constitutions around the world. 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."

In Stewart's book, the political maneuverings unfold in dramatic fashion.  Repeatedly, compromises the delegates spent weeks fighting over would be delegated to a committee.  Repeatedly, the committee or its single spokesman would create a product that exceeded their authority.  With the stroke of a pen, they added things and altered wording they didn't like.  These changed concepts usually were approved by the whole assembly for various reasons - they didn't notice, a behind-the-scenes trade had been made, or they were just too tired to argue.

As time wore on, more and more was delegated to committees.  Temperament and personality kept long-winded or combative delegates off key committees.  Intermittently, delegates would give up and go home, sometimes to return.  A garbage basket committee for more difficult decisions was appropriately called "Committee of Postponed Parts."  Finally, the "Style Committee" delegated to Gouverneur Morris the task of final wordage, giving him a final unique chance to edit meaning to his liking.  With one exception, Morris held that temptation in check, condensed 23 articles down to seven.  He also rewrote the famous and beautiful preamble.

For any US citizen, especially any who would deify the Constitution, I can't recommend this book enough.  The Constitution is a remarkable document but not without its problems.  The compromises on slavery alone gave the South unrepresentative power and led to the Civil War.  On the other hand the compromises seemed necessary if they were going to have any Constitution at all to show their nation - maybe slavery would die out on its own.  A very powerful book and a definite 5-stars.
3153713
The release of this book is timely, given that we are in an election year.  There will be other reviews longer than mine with far more detail, but I tend to gloss over them, so I will cut to the chase.  We are taught that the "great" presidents of our country were those who made significant social strides, saved the union, ended slavery, got us out of the Great Depression, provided health care coverage for all, and so on.  What is NOT being considered in these evaluations, is SHOULD the President have done what he did pursuant to the Constitution, as opposed to in response to public opinion.

Brion's book will examine the administrations selected keeping the Constitution in mind, and readers will understand that the Executive Branch has, for many years, far expanded its limitations under Article II.  The Presidential role has greatly exceeded its limited function and evolved into one that runs in direct contravention to the Constitution as drafted and ratified.  Readers will be surprised at the selection, and I am betting will not know much about at the four (especially three of the four) who acted in conformance with and gave due deference to our Constitution, for these men are written off by left-leaning historians as either do-nothing or weak presidents.

Even if you support the actions of the men listed based on policy preferences, one fact remains indisputable: their actions were clearly the opposite of what the Founding Fathers envisioned for our Constitutional Republic.
98033
Now that the US constitution is in shambles we would do well to understand it's origins.
3766085
In the face of conservative propaganda arguing the virtue of no-compromise, it is more important than ever to remember that the United States Constitution itself is a product of compromise. No man who served on the Constitutional Convention got everything he wanted, including especially the man known as the "Father of the Constitution", James Madison. The authors of Signing Their Rights Away: The Fame and Misfortune of the Men Who Signed The United States Constitution, understand this, as the title itself makes abundantly clear. Denise Kiernan and Joseph D'Agnese, authors of Signing Their Lives Away (Quirk, 2009) have turned their attention from the signers of the Declaration of Independence to the signers of the Constitution.

What they have put together is a handy and very attractive little series of mini-biographies of the 39 signers of the Constitution. The biographies are organized by state. Each has a picture and next to it the sort of important data you might expect to find on a baseball card. For example, Jonathan Langdon of New Hampshire is identified as "The signer who picked up the tub." We get his date of birth, his date of death, his age at signing, his profession, and his place of burial. We then get a brief bio of Langdon, about four pages long. Nicholas Gilman, the other New Hampshire delegate ("The most handsome signer"), gets about 3 pages. By way of contrast, George Washington (the president of the Constitutional Convention) gets about 7 pages and James Madison 6.

These biographies cannot tell you everything about these men. There are a plethora of fine book-length works on some of them that go into much greater depth. But that is not the purpose of this book, which is meant to serve as an introduction to these men, most of whom have faded into obscurity. In the case of Langdon, we not only learn who he was before the Constitutional Convention and how he came to be there, but that during the convention "he spoke more than twenty times" and that "his experience as a financier of military operations may have contributed to his belief that a strong central government would make it easier for the new country to defend itself." Gilman, on the other hand, we learn was "little liked" by his fellow delegates and that James Madison's "meticulous records" offer no record of the man having spoke at all. On the other hand, Gilman diligently sold the idea of the Constitution to his fellow New Hampshire citizens. "His enthusiasm," write the authors, "helped ensure New Hampshire's place of honor as the ninth state to sign, upon which the U.S. Constitution became a binding document."

This is a very handy little book because it's so easy to use. It gives you the key information about each signer in an easy to reference format. The dust jacket folds out into a poster of the original document and the appendices offer the Constitution itself and the Bill of Rights and additional amendments, as well as a "Constitutional miscellany" and some very brief bios of the men who left the convention without signing. There is also a brief bibliography.

This little book is entertaining, easy to read, and above all, informative. It's a brilliant piece of work and a must-have for any history-buff's library, but more than that, for anyone with an interest in defending that Constitution against the idea that compromise is an evil, for without it, we'd not have a Constitution to be arguing about today.
1455465
I can't believe how corrupt D.C. is and didn't realize how the 3 branches of government aren't following the constitution re their authority.  We need to push for efficiency and accountability!
628320
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
4819070
The writer offers a creative approach to reversing the trend towards a totalitarian regime in the United States of America, and returning to the democratic republic envisioned by the founding fathers.  The writer is anonymous but takes on the name of Friend of Medjugorje, a religious body from the small village of Medjugorje, Bosnia-Hercegovina, a village of 400 families.  Certain people in this village have received advice and counsel from apparitions heard over a number of years since the 1980's.  The writer's thesis is to change the direction of the United States of America back to the vision of the founding fathers by organizing from the bottom up rather than from the top down.  In the book, he included rigorous metrics across the country listing all communities with less than 500 people.  All of these communities could influence changes in the direction of government by prayer and the support of elected county sheriffs.  The writer's premise is that elected sheriffs are elected to uphold the Constitution and they have the power and means to do just that.  If all such communities across the country take this action, we will have a mandate for government reform to return to the founders' vision of America.<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Wake-Up-America-Understand-the-US-Constitution-and-Get-Involved/dp/1478260289/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Wake Up, America!: Understand the US Constitution and Get Involved</a>
1230020
The truth is out.  Our country is seriously in need of a revolution and revival.
3121771
For decades Americans have expressed their disappointment with our representatives in congress.  Inaction, partisan bickering, wasteful spending, and a general sense of our leaders being out of touch with their constituents lead to lower approval ratings every year.  Yet ninety-five percent of these folks continue to get re-elected.  The two parties, their money, and their chosen special interests have a stranglehold on politics and continue to dominate in every election.  What has to happen to break the impasse and effect some real change in our government?  How can we get the US House to truly be "representative" of the people, as the founding fathers intended?

Like many books, "Get Out of Our House: Revolution!" describes the startling political, social, and economic problems that currently plague America.  However, this book differs because it offers a workable method to get people involved and, through effective representation in government, begin to address these issues.

Independents and 3rd party candidates have not had much success going against the established two parties, particularly at the Federal level.  "Get Out of Our House" describes an ingenious, grassroots system for getting individuals on the ballot who would ordinarily be shut out of running for office.  GOOOH candidates provide yes/no answers to a number of topical questions.  This lets everyone know where they stand on issues.  No more vague, noncommittal answers during the campaign.  Further, GOOOH candidates are bound to vote according to those yes/no answers if elected.  This means, once in office, no more going against campaign promises and voting according to the special interests that put them there.  And each nominee from the GOOOH system pledges to serve a maximum of two terms, thereby eliminating political pandering done simply to get re-elected over and over.

It's a party without a platform.  Candidates are nominated by other potential candidates through a selection process spelled out in the book.  Ultimately the field is winnowed down to the individual chosen to be on the ballot.  It's important to note that the system is self-funding.  All candidates contribute a nominal amount to cover the campaign costs of the person ultimately nominated, no matter who it is.

Finally, a mechanism to get career politicians out of government.
2730597
When a presidential candidate gets on TV or in a debate and says elect me and Ill lower taxes, fix education or reform healthcare, most American voters overlook the fact that the office of President has no power delegated to it allowing the office holder to do any of these things.  The Presidents role as chief executive is to execute the laws passed by the legislative branch (congress), and to defend the constitution by vetoing laws that congress passes which are not constitutional.  But over time the perception has become that somehow the president is in fact the King whose will the congress must bow to, and from whose hands alone change can come. As a result of this, many on the right today think Obama has destroyed the country while those on the left believe its all Bush's fault. Theres truth and error within both positions, but looking at the subject contextually, the fact is that those two Presidents, and others, were able to wield power as a result of the precedents set by their predecessors- not as a result of the existence of any constitutional authority allowing them to do the things theyve done.  Said another way, contrary to popular belief, we did not just awaken one day and find ourselves in the mess were in. Rather, the proverbial snowball has been accumulating speed, size and potential destructive capacity for several generations. If Americans could be provided the evidence needed to glean this reality, then, and only then, can real change be brought forward and applied to our system of governance.

Brion McClanahans book 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America, and Four Who Tried to Save Her will walk readers through the process by which the powers of the office of President have been expanded far beyond anything even opponents of the constitution could have imagined. Using originalism with regard to the intent of the framers and ratifiers of the constitution, McClanahan expertly shows not only that the presidency has become imperialistic over time, but he provides the pertinent documentary information from primary source materials to prove his assertions. Readers of this important tome will come not only to see that presidential actions are no longer held in check by the constitution, but they will learn important and relevant facts concerning why these checks and balances were put into place to begin with. The end result is a thorough understanding of how and why usurpation of non-delegated powers works to erode liberty.

This book is not designed to libel or slander past Presidents. Rather, it offers a look at the office of President from a constitutional standpoint, and judges their actions, both good and bad, on that basis and from the viewpoint of a real expert on the subject. There are no punches pulled and no sacred cows. Just the facts delivered with erudite analysis. This will be another in my collection of books that I will refer back to over and again.
2697296
This is one of the best books on the Constitution I have read. It argues that the Declaration of Independence is fundamental to the Constitution. The Declaration, according to the author, provides a philosophical basis for the proper role of government as expressed in the Constitution. The author argues that Progressivism has derailed the Constitution by pushing the country toward democracy. This has enabled the violation of individual rights and set the nation on a path toward corruption, cronyism and coercion.  The Declaration not only declares separation between England and America but also the separation between man and government; it declares liberty to be the fundamental principle of society and consigns government to the task of protecting liberty rather than ignoring it for the sake of social goals. For Sandefur, I think, the mantra should be "liberty or democracy."

Timothy Sandefur does an excellent job of analyzing pivotal Supreme Court cases and their relevance to the Constitution. However, although he builds his case for the Declaration on the concept of natural rights, he does not provide a comprehensive definition of natural rights. Nor does he discuss their source.

In spite of this, the book is excellent at analyzing the fundamental movements for and against individual rights throughout our history. I highly recommend it.
2028028
This book is timely considering the major dysfunction of our government. We live in a day where politicians don't work for the people, but rather the people work for the politicians (at least I believe many in government believe this). If there were ever a case for term-limits this book would support such a system. In the book, the people are fed up with a governmental system that rejects the will of the people. Politicians do whatever that can to maintain their powers, even if it means suverting the process written in the constitution giving the power back to the people (Article V). The story is about such a battle between those who want to take back the government for the people and those who want to maintain power over the masses. Like i said, this book is timely considering the current polarization of our body politic. Eye opener and in a way, not so far fetched.
646999
Principles, philosophies and ideas to fix the USA. A program to follow the constitutional and create a revival to our country.
2774491
This a good book for the disgruntled Religious Republican or the Christian Libertarian that sees the wisdom in our Constitution and would love to see something exist in its more traditional framework.