Konrad
- 1
- revisión
- 0
- votos útiles
- 1
- clasificación
-
The Constitution in Jeopardy
- An Unprecedented Effort to Rewrite Our Fundamental Law and What We Can Do About It
- De: Russ Feingold, Peter Prindiville
- Narrado por: Jim Seybert, Russ Feingold, Peter Prindiville
- Duración: 8 h y 55 m
- Versión completa
-
General4 out of 5 stars 10
-
Narración:4 out of 5 stars 9
-
Historia4 out of 5 stars 8
Over the last two decades, a fringe plan to call a convention under the Constitution's amendment mechanism—the nation's first ever—has inched through statehouses. Delegates, like those in Philadelphia two centuries ago, would exercise nearly unlimited authority to draft changes to our fundamental law, potentially altering anything from voting and free speech rights to regulatory and foreign policy powers. Such a watershed moment would present great danger, and for some, great power. In this important book, Feingold and Prindiville examine the grave risks inherent in this effort.
-
5 out of 5 stars
-
Better understanding of Article 5
- De Amazon Customer en 07-19-23
- The Constitution in Jeopardy
- An Unprecedented Effort to Rewrite Our Fundamental Law and What We Can Do About It
- De: Russ Feingold, Peter Prindiville
- Narrado por: Jim Seybert, Russ Feingold, Peter Prindiville
Apt Title
Revisado: 03-03-23
This book argues the Constitution is under threat from the Constitution (Article V), so we need to rewrite that bad part of the Constitution to make it easier (for a national popular vote) to rewrite the rest of the Constitution. Yes "jeopardy" is a good word for that.
The authors make their case with skill and erudition, just like any good lawyer and politician, and you can even agree with certain insinuations (yes, routing all constitutional debate through court cases is underhanded and silly). But please realize this doesn't mean you have to accept their proposal. This is not an impartial treatise; it has an agenda that stems from a certain set of politics you don't have to agree with; and even if you do, don't ignore logical gaps, contradictions, and cherry-picked history just because you like the result. Do your own research. Or just read Article V. Ask obvious questions like "don't constitutional amendments have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states?" (The book has a pretty weak answer.) Ask yourself whether the authors likely hold consistent positions on, say, "stale" state actions when it comes to ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment, or "mal-apportionment" when it comes to Vermont, Delaware, and Rhode Island; do you think they decry the "nationalization of local politics" that took place in the 1960's and 70's? Or are these notions being invoked because it happens to support their position in this case.
It's funny to hear very smart people say "it's dangerous because it's never been done and there's no roadmap" when I suspect yesterday they were happy to throw such caution to the wind on a different topic. "An unprecedented effort to rewrite the fundamental law" indeed. And supposedly in the name of avoiding chaos? The authors here aren't arguing for any return to past principles, they're proposing something even more radical than their pretextual bogeyman. If it's a choice between that and a Convention of States, at least the latter is grounded in the Constitution.
Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.
Has calificado esta reseña.
Reportaste esta reseña