Today, 5pm ET.
Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance
Chat with Sanford Levison about his new book, hosted by Aziz Huq.
In Framed, Levinson challenges our belief that the most important features of our constitutions concern what rights they protect. Instead, he focuses on the fundamental procedures of governance such as congressional bicameralism; the selection of the President by the electoral college, or the dimensions of the President’s veto power–not to mention the near impossibility of amending the United States Constitution. These seemingly “settled” and “hardwired” structures contribute to the now almost universally recognized “dysfunctionality” of American politics.
Levinson argues that we should stop treating the United States Constitution as uniquely exemplifying the American constitutional tradition. We should be aware of the 50 state constitutions, often interestingly different–and perhaps better–than the national model. Many states have updated their constitutions by frequent amendment or by complete replacement via state constitutional conventions. California’s ungovernable condition has prompted serious calls for a constitutional convention. This constant churn indicates that basic law often reaches the point where it fails and becomes obsolete. Given the experience of so many states, he writes, surely it is reasonable to believe that the U.S. Constitution merits its own updating.
Whether we are concerned about making America more genuinely democratic or only about creating a system of government that can more effectively respond to contemporary challenges, we must confront the ways our constitutions, especially the United States Constitution, must be changed in fundamental ways.
Sanford Levinson is Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Texas-Austin. His books include Our Undemocratic Constitution, Constitutional Faith, and Wrestling with Diversity. (Oxford University Press)




3 Comments

I have heard plenty of good arguments for “amending” various elements of the constitution. I have yet to see a viable mechanism for doing so.
Note the frequent calls for a “constitutional amendment” to overturn or limit “Citizens United“. I have yet to see any actual wording proposed that I would support or oppose.
Hi Sandy and FDL readers,
Welcome to today’s salon. Why don’t I kick things off by adding to Coach Bill’s question, and asking about how constitutional amendment works today (which is one of the topics addressed in Framed). Basically, Article V of the Constitution makes the text of the Constitution very difficult to amend, and gives a functional veto to quite small and geographically concentrated minorities. Say we’re unhappy with one or other aspect of the Constitution. Are we stuck with Article V?
(This is a Preview” post – the actual Book Salon is here