What do you think?
Rate this book
No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States
No Democracy Lasts Forever argues that the Constitution has become a threat to American democracy and must be dramatically changed or replaced if secession is to be avoided.
Deeply troubled by the Constitution’s inherent flaws, Erwin Chemerinsky, the renowned dean of Berkeley law school, came to the sobering conclusion that our nearly 250-year-old founding document is responsible for the crisis now facing American democracy. Pointing out that just fifteen of the 11,848 amendments proposed since 1789 have passed, Chemerinsky contends that the very nature of our polarization results from the Constitution’s “bad bones,” which have created a government that no longer works or has the confidence of the public. Yet political armageddon can still be avoided, Chemerinsky writes, if a new constitutional convention is empowered to replace the Constitution of 1787, much as the Founding Fathers replaced the outdated Articles of Confederation. If this isn’t possible, Americans must give serious thought to forms of secession—including a United States structured like the European Union—based on a recognition that what divides us as a country is, in fact, greater than what unites us.
Deeply troubled by the Constitution’s inherent flaws, Erwin Chemerinsky, the renowned dean of Berkeley law school, came to the sobering conclusion that our nearly 250-year-old founding document is responsible for the crisis now facing American democracy. Pointing out that just fifteen of the 11,848 amendments proposed since 1789 have passed, Chemerinsky contends that the very nature of our polarization results from the Constitution’s “bad bones,” which have created a government that no longer works or has the confidence of the public. Yet political armageddon can still be avoided, Chemerinsky writes, if a new constitutional convention is empowered to replace the Constitution of 1787, much as the Founding Fathers replaced the outdated Articles of Confederation. If this isn’t possible, Americans must give serious thought to forms of secession—including a United States structured like the European Union—based on a recognition that what divides us as a country is, in fact, greater than what unites us.
240 pages, Hardcover
Published August 20, 2024
150 people are currently reading
2065 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
October 26, 2024
Chemerinsky is a well respected constitutional expert and dean of the law school at Berkeley. The last book by him that I read was about what a hoax that originalism is and he made a very strong argument. This book asserts that No Democracy Lasts Forever and so far in history that has proven true.
Living at a time when our democracy is very much endangered, the author begins with the premise that the primary cause for this state of affairs is the Constitution itself. It was written by a group of elites who lived over 200 years ago in a small, agrarian country where slavery was prevalent. The problems he states are first that slavery has left a legacy that is felt to this day. The issue of equality has still not been solved and the document, although it does not mention the word slavery even once, protected an institution that is antithetical anywhere where is the premise of liberty. There is also the electoral college whose origins were tied into slavery and to small states desiring more say in elections. The Senate is another of the weaknesses sited. It flies in the face of any concept of democracy for every state to have the same representation regardless of population. He sites gerrymandering as a huge obstacle to democracy, especially when it has become an art form largely because to computer programs that can produce thousands of divisions of districts. It is just up to politicians then to decide which will benefit their party the most and then apply them. Although both parties have gerrymandered district boundaries, it is the Republican Party that has used the method just described to make votes so unrepresentative of the actual numbers. There are states where votes for Democrats are 60% of the total vote compared with 40% for Republicans and yet with the districts drawn as they are, in one case, Republicans end up with 13 seats and Democrats only 5.
The Supreme Court is another problem. In the beginning, people's life expectancy was much shorter so justices might be on the bench for 15 years, if they are lucky but now, they can remain on the bench for 40 or more years. Filibustering is another issue that weakens our democracy as well as amending the Constitution.
As has been shown, there are many reasons that our democracy is threatened. The country has not been so divided since the Civil War and there are reasons to be concerned about what might happen in the future. Chermerinsky offers several possible solutions but none of them may be possible in the country with its current divisions.
Amending the Constitution could fix all problems (except for the Senate) but this process is painfully difficult as evidenced by the fact that since 1791 there have been only 17 amendments passed. We could also replace the current constitution with another one but there is the danger that what might result could be worse than what we have. It is possible to make many reforms without amendments but partisanship makes that almost impossible. Finally, there is the possibility of secession- but that did not work out so well the last time it was tried. Because of the conditions in the country, there have been 2 presidential elections in the 21st century where the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote. Chemerinsky believes that that will happen more frequently going forward.
The author concludes by expressing his hope that the path we are currently on will somehow sort itself and we will return to a saner time- but there is nothing to suggest that that will happen anytime soon. Chemerinsky's work is thoughtful and well researched. It is always interesting to read his thoughts so I recommend the book although for me it is rather depressing because there is so much truth in what he says.
Living at a time when our democracy is very much endangered, the author begins with the premise that the primary cause for this state of affairs is the Constitution itself. It was written by a group of elites who lived over 200 years ago in a small, agrarian country where slavery was prevalent. The problems he states are first that slavery has left a legacy that is felt to this day. The issue of equality has still not been solved and the document, although it does not mention the word slavery even once, protected an institution that is antithetical anywhere where is the premise of liberty. There is also the electoral college whose origins were tied into slavery and to small states desiring more say in elections. The Senate is another of the weaknesses sited. It flies in the face of any concept of democracy for every state to have the same representation regardless of population. He sites gerrymandering as a huge obstacle to democracy, especially when it has become an art form largely because to computer programs that can produce thousands of divisions of districts. It is just up to politicians then to decide which will benefit their party the most and then apply them. Although both parties have gerrymandered district boundaries, it is the Republican Party that has used the method just described to make votes so unrepresentative of the actual numbers. There are states where votes for Democrats are 60% of the total vote compared with 40% for Republicans and yet with the districts drawn as they are, in one case, Republicans end up with 13 seats and Democrats only 5.
The Supreme Court is another problem. In the beginning, people's life expectancy was much shorter so justices might be on the bench for 15 years, if they are lucky but now, they can remain on the bench for 40 or more years. Filibustering is another issue that weakens our democracy as well as amending the Constitution.
As has been shown, there are many reasons that our democracy is threatened. The country has not been so divided since the Civil War and there are reasons to be concerned about what might happen in the future. Chermerinsky offers several possible solutions but none of them may be possible in the country with its current divisions.
Amending the Constitution could fix all problems (except for the Senate) but this process is painfully difficult as evidenced by the fact that since 1791 there have been only 17 amendments passed. We could also replace the current constitution with another one but there is the danger that what might result could be worse than what we have. It is possible to make many reforms without amendments but partisanship makes that almost impossible. Finally, there is the possibility of secession- but that did not work out so well the last time it was tried. Because of the conditions in the country, there have been 2 presidential elections in the 21st century where the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote. Chemerinsky believes that that will happen more frequently going forward.
The author concludes by expressing his hope that the path we are currently on will somehow sort itself and we will return to a saner time- but there is nothing to suggest that that will happen anytime soon. Chemerinsky's work is thoughtful and well researched. It is always interesting to read his thoughts so I recommend the book although for me it is rather depressing because there is so much truth in what he says.
July 15, 2024
This would have been better as a long magazine/scholarly journal piece. While the subject is important and interesting, the author repeats information over and over. His suggestions to amend the Constitution are spot-on, but -- and he admits this -- that will never happen in today's polarized environment. My husband and I talk quite a bit about how disgusted we are with the current Supreme Court members who take "originalism" to justify decisions that have no bearing on modern society. I agree that our democracy could be saved by setting term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court members, getting rid of the filibuster and gerrymandering, keeping the executive branch of our government accountable, and eliminating the Electoral College. I doubt any of that will happen anytime soon.
I was most interested in his writings about states that are seriously considering seceding from the Union -- specifically, Texas and California. There have been a number of recent books -- both fiction and non-fiction, as well as the movie, "Civil War," that feature secession. I don't know if that will actually happen, but with all that is going on in our country, I guess nothing is out of the realm of possibility.
All in all, this book is a good primer for those who want to learn more about the history of the Constitution, the problems and possible solutions facing our country, and perhaps spur a new generation to at least become politically active. You might have to skim over big parts -- especially the repetition, but you will gain some insight.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the ARC and the opportunity to review this book.
I was most interested in his writings about states that are seriously considering seceding from the Union -- specifically, Texas and California. There have been a number of recent books -- both fiction and non-fiction, as well as the movie, "Civil War," that feature secession. I don't know if that will actually happen, but with all that is going on in our country, I guess nothing is out of the realm of possibility.
All in all, this book is a good primer for those who want to learn more about the history of the Constitution, the problems and possible solutions facing our country, and perhaps spur a new generation to at least become politically active. You might have to skim over big parts -- especially the repetition, but you will gain some insight.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the ARC and the opportunity to review this book.
October 15, 2024
I will start out by saying, I totally disagree with the author both intellectually in his account of US History and as an American citizen in his account of our political environment. However, if you’re a political conservative, I think this book is worthwhile to help you understand why Democrats have rallied around the term “threat to democracy”. If you’re already progressive leaning, this book will likely be less beneficial, but still provides an interesting discussion of how to alter our system of government.
The author starts with a large assumption which he does not explain, but simply assumes all readers will agree with – pure democracy is the only just form of government. From this assumption, he begins a multi-pronged attack against the US’s current form of government. He concludes that the lifelong tenure of Supreme Court justices is an undemocratic injustice. The existence of the US Senate where each state is equally represented instead of each citizen is unjust. The use of an electoral college instead of a popular vote for President is unjust. Any super-majoritarian requirement from the Senate filibuster to the three-quarters of states required to amend the constitution is also an abhorrent obstacle to the popular will and therefore unjust. While the author does largely make fair nods to counterarguments throughout the book, he is undoubtably convinced that each of these elements of the US Constitution represent the corrupt compromises of our founding fathers to accommodate slavery.
The author proposes three paths forward in order to avert what he views as imminent political crisis. First, he examines the ability of Congress or the judicial branch to make legislation and court rulings to overcome the undemocratic elements of our Constitution. He ultimately concludes that this is unlikely given that the Supreme Court and the US Senate are two of the principal targets of these “democratizing reforms”. Next, he examines the possibility of resolving these issues through constitutional amendment, but concludes once again that it is unlikely to succeed given the requirement of small states to ratify amendments even if they are contrary to their own interests. He does make a half-hearted argument that the President could create a constitutional convention to draft an entirely new constitution that would be ratified by a simple majority of US voters in a referendum, but he acknowledges that the scenario is still currently unlikely. Finally and most shockingly, the author makes a case for state secession if these issues are not resolved at the federal level. He makes the fascinating assertion that secession is permissible within our current constitution and imagines the ability of the country to peacefully allow states to secede into ideally a construct similar to the European Union.
My initial response to the author is that his extreme rhetoric to the point of laying out a case for state secession is overly grim if not intentional fear-mongering. The author fails to appreciate the enduring ability of the constitution to hold together, if not unite, our large and diverse country. While slavery was absolutely a grave moral and political failure at the country’s founding, I do not believe it has poisoned our system of government beyond repair. Regardless of the issue of slavery, small states would have never ratified the constitution without concessions that gave them disproportionate influence to defend their interests such as the electoral college and the US Senate. Similarly, I am confident that the author would agree that the Supreme Court’s most important accomplishments have been precisely because they were counter-majoritarian (e.g. free speech, due process, etc.). It is misguided to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court solely because the author disagrees with its current composition and its incompatibility with public opinion.
To the author’s credit, in laying out potential solutions he gives due deference to the constitution and the inability to make his desired changes by statute alone. However, his ultimate conclusion that a new constitution could be ratified by a simple majority in a national referendum is disappointingly short-sighted. The constitution would provide no protection against popular mood if it could be amended so easily. For an example, imagine the potential popularity of a referendum in January of 1942 to declare all Japanese and German descendants as non-citizens with no protections of civil liberties or civil rights. The constitution must be more difficult to amend than a simple statute or its protections will be practically worthless.
In imagining the “nuclear option” of state secession, the author ironically discovers exactly what many traditional conservatives have long argued for — the ability of states to decide issues for themselves. The concept of the United States as analogous to the European Union where each state governs itself except for a few collective areas of collaboration (free trade, defense, foreign affairs) is exactly what a strict reading of Article I, Section VIII and the Tenth Amendment creates. Although the author does not draw this conclusion, I propose that the easiest answer to lower the temperature in our political culture is to seek solutions at the state-level where the governing bodies are more democratic and closer to their electorate. This has already played out on the issue of abortion where over-confident Republican lawmakers were defeated in their first post-Dobbs attempts to write state laws. Far from needing each state to secede, this reform can simply be accomplished by an electorate that demands solutions at home instead of in Washington. As the United States has become more connected and the world more complex, there are doubtlessly still significant challenges for the federal government to address. However, we could all benefit from taking a moment to think about how our favorite national issues can be addressed in our home state first.
The author starts with a large assumption which he does not explain, but simply assumes all readers will agree with – pure democracy is the only just form of government. From this assumption, he begins a multi-pronged attack against the US’s current form of government. He concludes that the lifelong tenure of Supreme Court justices is an undemocratic injustice. The existence of the US Senate where each state is equally represented instead of each citizen is unjust. The use of an electoral college instead of a popular vote for President is unjust. Any super-majoritarian requirement from the Senate filibuster to the three-quarters of states required to amend the constitution is also an abhorrent obstacle to the popular will and therefore unjust. While the author does largely make fair nods to counterarguments throughout the book, he is undoubtably convinced that each of these elements of the US Constitution represent the corrupt compromises of our founding fathers to accommodate slavery.
The author proposes three paths forward in order to avert what he views as imminent political crisis. First, he examines the ability of Congress or the judicial branch to make legislation and court rulings to overcome the undemocratic elements of our Constitution. He ultimately concludes that this is unlikely given that the Supreme Court and the US Senate are two of the principal targets of these “democratizing reforms”. Next, he examines the possibility of resolving these issues through constitutional amendment, but concludes once again that it is unlikely to succeed given the requirement of small states to ratify amendments even if they are contrary to their own interests. He does make a half-hearted argument that the President could create a constitutional convention to draft an entirely new constitution that would be ratified by a simple majority of US voters in a referendum, but he acknowledges that the scenario is still currently unlikely. Finally and most shockingly, the author makes a case for state secession if these issues are not resolved at the federal level. He makes the fascinating assertion that secession is permissible within our current constitution and imagines the ability of the country to peacefully allow states to secede into ideally a construct similar to the European Union.
My initial response to the author is that his extreme rhetoric to the point of laying out a case for state secession is overly grim if not intentional fear-mongering. The author fails to appreciate the enduring ability of the constitution to hold together, if not unite, our large and diverse country. While slavery was absolutely a grave moral and political failure at the country’s founding, I do not believe it has poisoned our system of government beyond repair. Regardless of the issue of slavery, small states would have never ratified the constitution without concessions that gave them disproportionate influence to defend their interests such as the electoral college and the US Senate. Similarly, I am confident that the author would agree that the Supreme Court’s most important accomplishments have been precisely because they were counter-majoritarian (e.g. free speech, due process, etc.). It is misguided to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court solely because the author disagrees with its current composition and its incompatibility with public opinion.
To the author’s credit, in laying out potential solutions he gives due deference to the constitution and the inability to make his desired changes by statute alone. However, his ultimate conclusion that a new constitution could be ratified by a simple majority in a national referendum is disappointingly short-sighted. The constitution would provide no protection against popular mood if it could be amended so easily. For an example, imagine the potential popularity of a referendum in January of 1942 to declare all Japanese and German descendants as non-citizens with no protections of civil liberties or civil rights. The constitution must be more difficult to amend than a simple statute or its protections will be practically worthless.
In imagining the “nuclear option” of state secession, the author ironically discovers exactly what many traditional conservatives have long argued for — the ability of states to decide issues for themselves. The concept of the United States as analogous to the European Union where each state governs itself except for a few collective areas of collaboration (free trade, defense, foreign affairs) is exactly what a strict reading of Article I, Section VIII and the Tenth Amendment creates. Although the author does not draw this conclusion, I propose that the easiest answer to lower the temperature in our political culture is to seek solutions at the state-level where the governing bodies are more democratic and closer to their electorate. This has already played out on the issue of abortion where over-confident Republican lawmakers were defeated in their first post-Dobbs attempts to write state laws. Far from needing each state to secede, this reform can simply be accomplished by an electorate that demands solutions at home instead of in Washington. As the United States has become more connected and the world more complex, there are doubtlessly still significant challenges for the federal government to address. However, we could all benefit from taking a moment to think about how our favorite national issues can be addressed in our home state first.
January 19, 2025
An interesting premise and some interesting parts, but I agree with others…this is more suited for a long-form essay than a book. TLDR: The future of democracy is bleak.
July 22, 2025
First 2/3 were criticisms of the constitution of the Supreme Court and constitution I was basically familiar with, however Chemerinsky added some interesting minutiae to my understanding. Last third I think is what actually convinced me of his thesis because he expertly lays out the options we have and what they’ll likely entail:
1) change by legislation: unlikely to occur because requires legislators to work against their interests in a number of ways such as banning gerrymandering. Also a number of changes could be overruled by the Supreme Court.
2) amendments: requires a huge amount of consensus from both the federal legislature and state legislatures so basically impossible and cannot eliminate the senate.
3) new constitutional convention to write a new constitution: explicitly allowed in the constitution and can be established by the majority vote of the population of the US. Allows us to start from the beginning and not have to work around the issues of the current constitution. Clearly the preferred option by the author but seems unlikely due to our civic religion around the founders.
4) secession: not necessarily violent but if it is it would be horrific. Even if it isn’t violent there will need to retain some federal structure to control the US military so would likely result in a EU like situation. Even this situation would be extremely painful and requires a significantly devolved political situation.
Ultimately I feel like the book would be best served by significantly compressing the first 2/3 because the last third is really where Chemerinsky starts adding to the conversation in an extremely provocative way.
1) change by legislation: unlikely to occur because requires legislators to work against their interests in a number of ways such as banning gerrymandering. Also a number of changes could be overruled by the Supreme Court.
2) amendments: requires a huge amount of consensus from both the federal legislature and state legislatures so basically impossible and cannot eliminate the senate.
3) new constitutional convention to write a new constitution: explicitly allowed in the constitution and can be established by the majority vote of the population of the US. Allows us to start from the beginning and not have to work around the issues of the current constitution. Clearly the preferred option by the author but seems unlikely due to our civic religion around the founders.
4) secession: not necessarily violent but if it is it would be horrific. Even if it isn’t violent there will need to retain some federal structure to control the US military so would likely result in a EU like situation. Even this situation would be extremely painful and requires a significantly devolved political situation.
Ultimately I feel like the book would be best served by significantly compressing the first 2/3 because the last third is really where Chemerinsky starts adding to the conversation in an extremely provocative way.
November 19, 2024
This is an important analysis of what the author thinks are the root causes of the serious discontent in American Society...and the cause is the obsolete American Constitution. This document, created for an agrarian slave holding society, is not longer able to be amended or changed to suit our current social situation.
The book outlines and exculpates all the problems that stem from the original document (Electoral College, Undemocratic Senate, Lifetime Supreme Court Justices, Gerrymandering, filibuster, Population shifts). He does not think that new statues, constitutional amendments, or judicial decisions can rectify these issues.
Although he does not propose how to solve the issues, the author does discuss succession as an option; but concludes that neither succession nor a constitutional convention is likely (as desirable as they may be).
A couple things I learned from the book include the Inability to change the Senatorial structure of 2 Senators per state (the document itself forbids it), and the option to call a convention (difficult, but actually mentioned in the original Constitution).
The Constitution is not sacred writ, it was a compromise between slave and free states and a successor to a failed Articles of Confederation. It can be changed but the process is almost impossible. This work argues that only producing a up to date and New Constitution can solve any of the political and social problems we face. He is right, but neither he nor I, can offer a viable path to this result!
The book outlines and exculpates all the problems that stem from the original document (Electoral College, Undemocratic Senate, Lifetime Supreme Court Justices, Gerrymandering, filibuster, Population shifts). He does not think that new statues, constitutional amendments, or judicial decisions can rectify these issues.
Although he does not propose how to solve the issues, the author does discuss succession as an option; but concludes that neither succession nor a constitutional convention is likely (as desirable as they may be).
A couple things I learned from the book include the Inability to change the Senatorial structure of 2 Senators per state (the document itself forbids it), and the option to call a convention (difficult, but actually mentioned in the original Constitution).
The Constitution is not sacred writ, it was a compromise between slave and free states and a successor to a failed Articles of Confederation. It can be changed but the process is almost impossible. This work argues that only producing a up to date and New Constitution can solve any of the political and social problems we face. He is right, but neither he nor I, can offer a viable path to this result!
February 24, 2025
This is a thought provoking work, but the reader shouldn't expect to come away with anything too nuanced or practical. That isn't necessarily a critique - it seems that Chemerinsky intends this book to be the start of a much longer conversation about the future of our constitutional union and may have intentionally left the reader with more questions than answers. Chemerinsky seems to have take for granted that all readers would come to the book with a particular understanding of "democracy." Since he doesn't define the word, as a reader I slowly came to realize that Chemerinsky has a narrow and uncompromising view of democracy as majoritarian and one-person-one-vote-always-and-forever. While obvious elements of any democratic order, Chemerinsky insists on taking them to an extreme that makes me wonder if any state, existing or historic, has ever been truly democratic by his standards which seem to preclude any compromises that allow for pragmatic systems of federated representation or judicial oversight. Even while I found some of his specific criticisms of the US constitution underdeveloped, I was persuaded by his overarching thesis: the constitution needs a serious facelift to govern America in the 21st century.
October 5, 2024
Very provocative. I disagree with some of his points, but it was worth reading. Regardless of what side you fall on politically, this books is a good read in that it will confirm some of your suspicions while informing you on points you will likely oppose. Shows Chemerinsky did a good job of at least balancing his arguments.
September 14, 2024
An important and timely book. The divisions in our democracy are ever-widening, and seemingly unfixable. We all need to think seriously about how we can fix this problem. The author suggests several things that sound reasonable, but are they achievable? Very good book!
July 28, 2024
Erwin Chemerinsky Calls for a New Constitution.
In his new book, set to be released during the heat of the 2024 Presidential election, Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky offers a meaty and controversial take on what’s been causing deep chasms in American politics. For conservative originalists, it’s been a falling away from the truer faith of the founding. Chemerinsky turns that argument on its head. For him, the central danger to American democracy is the Constitution itself. It’s too infused with the intentions of its slave-holding creators who were afraid of a government that would be too responsive to the people. It’s time, he argues, to ask what kind of government Americans of the 21st Century really want.
The Constitution shelters the government from the people. Except for the House of Representatives, none of the three branches were directly elected under the Constitution. To protect slavery, it said nothing about equality, the very idea that made the Declaration of Independence famous. He questions whether the compromises that led to the Constitution were worth it.
Since then, population changes have made the government less responsive. Take the Senate, in which every state has the same number of Senators regardless of its population. When the Constitution was written the largest state had 12 times the population of the smallest state. Now California has 68 times the population of Wyoming. And aggregately, while in recent years Republican Senators have had equal numbers as their Democratic colleagues, they have represented 42 million fewer people. Combined with the filibuster, which requires a supermajority for most legislation to pass, it means that Senators representing just a quarter of the population can dictate legislative outcomes to the rest of the country. This, Chemerinsky says, makes the Senate egregiously undemocratic.
But it’s the Electoral College that receives most of his fire. It’s why the candidate with the most popular votes lost the Presidential elections in 2000 and 2016 and nearly lost in 2020. So visceral is Chemerinsky’s hatred for the college that he devotes three outlandish pages arguing that the Supreme Court could hold it Unconstitutional—even though the Constitution created it.
Two-thirds of Americans believe that the Presidential candidate with the most votes should win. The only sure way of ensuring the person with the most votes wins is to change the Constitution.
Then we have the Supreme Court. The Constitution provides that unelected justices serve during good behavior, which is unlimited. But their term in office has ballooned. Until 1970 the average tenure of a Supreme Court justice was a modest fifteen years. Since then, it’s swelled to twenty-eight years. For justices that are not answerable to the people, this is an extraordinary amount of power. Life tenure is at odds with democracy. This explains why no other country gives its justices life tenure. It’s time for term limits.
Yet, some of our ills do not require a Constitutional makeover. A mere majority vote of the Senate would kill the filibuster. Ordinary legislation could eliminate gerrymandering in House elections. Chemerinsky swiftly acknowledges this but is eager to reach his central message. He wants a new Constitution, a government for the 21st century, one where the Presidential candidate with the most votes wins, and where a tiny minority cannot dictate legislative outcomes to the rest of the country. So eager is he for change that he elaborates at length on the mechanics of a new Constitutional Convention and is not put off by the prospect of failure.
Chemerinsky relishes his role as a Constitutional provocateur. But he spends far too much time speculating on how the United States could devolve if a new Constitutional Convention led the country to split it apart.
He also overstates his case that the Constitution is what is causing our democracy to fail. Sure, because of the Electoral College, it can be directly blamed for the fact that a candidate can win the presidency and have several million fewer votes. And because of population shifts the Senate now dilutes the votes of large states far beyond anything imagined when the Constitution was written. But it did not cause partisan gerrymandering or dark money in elections. It’s just that this Supreme Court does not think the Constitution prevents these diseases of democracy.
He is on higher ground when he argues that the government created by the Constitution is becoming less responsive to the people and Americans are becoming more disillusioned with it. His proposed cure is for us to ask what kind of government we want for the 21st century.
This is a book of ideas. It winds up trying too hard to do too many things. Yet compelling us to ask what kind of government will keep the country together is the same question that those who attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were asking. They weren’t looking to the past, but to the future. Chemerinsky is prodding us to do the same.
No Democracy Lasts Forever: How The Constitution Threatens the United States, By Erwin Chemerinsky | Liveright | August 20, 2024 | 240 pages | $29.99
Andrew J. Kennedy is a Pennsylvania lawyer and writer.
In his new book, set to be released during the heat of the 2024 Presidential election, Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky offers a meaty and controversial take on what’s been causing deep chasms in American politics. For conservative originalists, it’s been a falling away from the truer faith of the founding. Chemerinsky turns that argument on its head. For him, the central danger to American democracy is the Constitution itself. It’s too infused with the intentions of its slave-holding creators who were afraid of a government that would be too responsive to the people. It’s time, he argues, to ask what kind of government Americans of the 21st Century really want.
The Constitution shelters the government from the people. Except for the House of Representatives, none of the three branches were directly elected under the Constitution. To protect slavery, it said nothing about equality, the very idea that made the Declaration of Independence famous. He questions whether the compromises that led to the Constitution were worth it.
Since then, population changes have made the government less responsive. Take the Senate, in which every state has the same number of Senators regardless of its population. When the Constitution was written the largest state had 12 times the population of the smallest state. Now California has 68 times the population of Wyoming. And aggregately, while in recent years Republican Senators have had equal numbers as their Democratic colleagues, they have represented 42 million fewer people. Combined with the filibuster, which requires a supermajority for most legislation to pass, it means that Senators representing just a quarter of the population can dictate legislative outcomes to the rest of the country. This, Chemerinsky says, makes the Senate egregiously undemocratic.
But it’s the Electoral College that receives most of his fire. It’s why the candidate with the most popular votes lost the Presidential elections in 2000 and 2016 and nearly lost in 2020. So visceral is Chemerinsky’s hatred for the college that he devotes three outlandish pages arguing that the Supreme Court could hold it Unconstitutional—even though the Constitution created it.
Two-thirds of Americans believe that the Presidential candidate with the most votes should win. The only sure way of ensuring the person with the most votes wins is to change the Constitution.
Then we have the Supreme Court. The Constitution provides that unelected justices serve during good behavior, which is unlimited. But their term in office has ballooned. Until 1970 the average tenure of a Supreme Court justice was a modest fifteen years. Since then, it’s swelled to twenty-eight years. For justices that are not answerable to the people, this is an extraordinary amount of power. Life tenure is at odds with democracy. This explains why no other country gives its justices life tenure. It’s time for term limits.
Yet, some of our ills do not require a Constitutional makeover. A mere majority vote of the Senate would kill the filibuster. Ordinary legislation could eliminate gerrymandering in House elections. Chemerinsky swiftly acknowledges this but is eager to reach his central message. He wants a new Constitution, a government for the 21st century, one where the Presidential candidate with the most votes wins, and where a tiny minority cannot dictate legislative outcomes to the rest of the country. So eager is he for change that he elaborates at length on the mechanics of a new Constitutional Convention and is not put off by the prospect of failure.
Chemerinsky relishes his role as a Constitutional provocateur. But he spends far too much time speculating on how the United States could devolve if a new Constitutional Convention led the country to split it apart.
He also overstates his case that the Constitution is what is causing our democracy to fail. Sure, because of the Electoral College, it can be directly blamed for the fact that a candidate can win the presidency and have several million fewer votes. And because of population shifts the Senate now dilutes the votes of large states far beyond anything imagined when the Constitution was written. But it did not cause partisan gerrymandering or dark money in elections. It’s just that this Supreme Court does not think the Constitution prevents these diseases of democracy.
He is on higher ground when he argues that the government created by the Constitution is becoming less responsive to the people and Americans are becoming more disillusioned with it. His proposed cure is for us to ask what kind of government we want for the 21st century.
This is a book of ideas. It winds up trying too hard to do too many things. Yet compelling us to ask what kind of government will keep the country together is the same question that those who attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were asking. They weren’t looking to the past, but to the future. Chemerinsky is prodding us to do the same.
No Democracy Lasts Forever: How The Constitution Threatens the United States, By Erwin Chemerinsky | Liveright | August 20, 2024 | 240 pages | $29.99
Andrew J. Kennedy is a Pennsylvania lawyer and writer.
July 31, 2024
Unoriginal Hyper-Leftist Wet Dream. In all honesty, had I known that Chemerinsky was the Dean of the Berkely School of Law, I probably would never have picked up this book to begin with. I would have already known most of what he was going to say... and now having actually read it, I can positively say that 95% of my assumptions would have been correct.
Basically, however you feel about the Citizens United ruling, recent SCOTUS decisions, packing the Court, the Electoral College, and the well-debunked "Russian Collusion" conspiracy theory from the 2016 Presidential Election is largely how you're going to feel about this book. It honestly reads as little more than hyper-leftist dreams about everything that has gone "wrong" with America for the last decade or two. Thus, some of you are going to sing this book's praises from the highest places you can as loudly as you can. And some of you are going to want to take a window to those places just so you can be assured that you will be able to defenestrate this book from those places.
Chemerinsky *does* get *close* to some genuinely good ideas, ideas that could *actually* solve a lot of the problems he names... and then quickly backs away from them, for the most part. His one consistent good idea is that the process of "Winner Take All" as it relates to Electoral College votes does in fact need to end - a stance I've had for much of my adult life, particularly my politically engaged adult life. The more interesting things that he addresses but then thinks *secession* is more viable are as they relate to the number of Congressmen. Chemerinsky correctly points out that the only thing limiting the size of the US House to 435 members is a US law passed less than a century ago - and laws can be overturned in a number of ways. Here again, one weakness of Chemerinsky is that in proclaiming the Constitution a threat - and even spending quite a bit of the text here decrying the SCOTUS as a threat - he openly advocates for SCOTUS to take action against this law. But even this idea is hardly original, as people across the political spectrum have been proposing it for many years already.
Another point Chemerinsky gets truly close to a near-original idea (it has been proposed by at least one writer) is when he proposes - briefly, before quickly retracting it and dismissing it as unworkable - that States be broken into "smaller States". But if "Democracy" is truly the end goal, and Chemerinsky wants everyone across the US to be as truly even as possible, why isn't he going full-bore here? As others have written, first, build the House up to its Constitutionally mandated maximum size - every Congressman represents exactly 35,000 people, the Constitutionally mandated minimum number of people per Representative. That gives us something like 11K US Representatives. Now, take Chemerinsky's own note here that "smaller States" would each get 2 US Senators... and make every single one of those US Rep Districts its own State. That would mean that every US Rep represents 35K people... and every Senator represents 35,000 / 2 == 17,500 people each. Meaning that for every 35,000 people, on average 1 Congressman of some level represents just under 12,000 people. Which in some urban areas is considerably less than an entire block, and in some rural areas could be several hundred square miles of territory. But Chemerinsky doesn't go here, instead he just continually reiterates hyper leftist talking points rather than seeking actual solutions to the problems he decries.
Ultimately, I deducted two stars from this book - the first is for the dearth of a bibliography, clocking in at just 12% of the text I read weeks before publication. Even being generous and lowering my 20-30% standard, as I've been trying to do of late, I just can't justify allowing such a small bibliography against such grand claims. Even here, the bibliography itself is quite cherry picked and doesn't show the full scope of what is going on through many of Chemerinsky's claims, but I've never really addressed that issue in other reviews and won't really address it here either.
The other star really was for the lack of objectivity and just how unoriginal very nearly everything about this book was. If you've seen nearly any left-leaning politician or activist speak in the last 20 years, they're all saying much of the same things Chemerinsky is saying here - including more and more of them openly talking of secession, which would be ruinous on us all.
Again, at the end of the day your feelings about this book are largely going to hinge on just how ideologically aligned with extreme leftist US politics you are, so know that when making your decision to read this book. Some of you are going to LOVE this book, and others are going to HATE it, and it will largely be for exactly the same reasons.
Recommended.
Basically, however you feel about the Citizens United ruling, recent SCOTUS decisions, packing the Court, the Electoral College, and the well-debunked "Russian Collusion" conspiracy theory from the 2016 Presidential Election is largely how you're going to feel about this book. It honestly reads as little more than hyper-leftist dreams about everything that has gone "wrong" with America for the last decade or two. Thus, some of you are going to sing this book's praises from the highest places you can as loudly as you can. And some of you are going to want to take a window to those places just so you can be assured that you will be able to defenestrate this book from those places.
Chemerinsky *does* get *close* to some genuinely good ideas, ideas that could *actually* solve a lot of the problems he names... and then quickly backs away from them, for the most part. His one consistent good idea is that the process of "Winner Take All" as it relates to Electoral College votes does in fact need to end - a stance I've had for much of my adult life, particularly my politically engaged adult life. The more interesting things that he addresses but then thinks *secession* is more viable are as they relate to the number of Congressmen. Chemerinsky correctly points out that the only thing limiting the size of the US House to 435 members is a US law passed less than a century ago - and laws can be overturned in a number of ways. Here again, one weakness of Chemerinsky is that in proclaiming the Constitution a threat - and even spending quite a bit of the text here decrying the SCOTUS as a threat - he openly advocates for SCOTUS to take action against this law. But even this idea is hardly original, as people across the political spectrum have been proposing it for many years already.
Another point Chemerinsky gets truly close to a near-original idea (it has been proposed by at least one writer) is when he proposes - briefly, before quickly retracting it and dismissing it as unworkable - that States be broken into "smaller States". But if "Democracy" is truly the end goal, and Chemerinsky wants everyone across the US to be as truly even as possible, why isn't he going full-bore here? As others have written, first, build the House up to its Constitutionally mandated maximum size - every Congressman represents exactly 35,000 people, the Constitutionally mandated minimum number of people per Representative. That gives us something like 11K US Representatives. Now, take Chemerinsky's own note here that "smaller States" would each get 2 US Senators... and make every single one of those US Rep Districts its own State. That would mean that every US Rep represents 35K people... and every Senator represents 35,000 / 2 == 17,500 people each. Meaning that for every 35,000 people, on average 1 Congressman of some level represents just under 12,000 people. Which in some urban areas is considerably less than an entire block, and in some rural areas could be several hundred square miles of territory. But Chemerinsky doesn't go here, instead he just continually reiterates hyper leftist talking points rather than seeking actual solutions to the problems he decries.
Ultimately, I deducted two stars from this book - the first is for the dearth of a bibliography, clocking in at just 12% of the text I read weeks before publication. Even being generous and lowering my 20-30% standard, as I've been trying to do of late, I just can't justify allowing such a small bibliography against such grand claims. Even here, the bibliography itself is quite cherry picked and doesn't show the full scope of what is going on through many of Chemerinsky's claims, but I've never really addressed that issue in other reviews and won't really address it here either.
The other star really was for the lack of objectivity and just how unoriginal very nearly everything about this book was. If you've seen nearly any left-leaning politician or activist speak in the last 20 years, they're all saying much of the same things Chemerinsky is saying here - including more and more of them openly talking of secession, which would be ruinous on us all.
Again, at the end of the day your feelings about this book are largely going to hinge on just how ideologically aligned with extreme leftist US politics you are, so know that when making your decision to read this book. Some of you are going to LOVE this book, and others are going to HATE it, and it will largely be for exactly the same reasons.
Recommended.
November 27, 2024
# Alternative Constitutional Frameworks for the United States
## 1. European Union-Style Model
In this model, the United States would function similarly to the current European Union, with states taking on roles analogous to EU member states:
- A central governing body (similar to the European Commission) would handle overarching policies and coordination.
- Each state would retain significant autonomy in areas like taxation, education, and social policies.
- A common currency (the dollar) would be maintained, with a federal reserve system similar to the European Central Bank.
- Free movement of people and goods between states would be guaranteed.
- A directly elected parliament would represent citizens at the national level.
- A council of state governors would make decisions on major national policies.
## 2. Regional Confederation Model
This model would group states into larger regional entities:
- Create 5-7 regions based on geographic, economic, and cultural similarities (e.g., Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest, West Coast, Mountain West).
- Each region would have its own government and significant autonomy.
- A weak central government would handle defense, foreign policy, and interstate commerce.
- Regions would have the power to create their own laws and economic policies.
- A council of regional leaders would make decisions on national matters.
## 3. Direct Democracy Model
This alternative would emphasize more direct citizen participation:
- Implement a national digital voting system for major policy decisions.
- Reduce the power of representatives and increase citizen referendums.
- Create a randomly selected citizen assembly to propose and review legislation.
- Maintain a small executive branch for day-to-day operations and foreign policy.
- Implement term limits and recall elections for all elected officials.
## 4. Technocratic Governance Model
This model would prioritize expertise in governance:
- Replace elected officials with appointed experts in various fields.
- Create a merit-based system for selecting leaders and policymakers.
- Implement a national civil service exam for government positions.
- Establish advisory boards of scientists, economists, and other experts to guide policy decisions.
- Maintain democratic checks through citizen referendums on major decisions.
## 5. Dual Executive Model
This alternative would split executive power:
- Create two executive positions: a President for domestic affairs and a President for foreign affairs.
- Implement a parliamentary system for selecting the domestic President.
- Directly elect the foreign affairs President.
- Strengthen the legislative branch's oversight powers.
- Create a new branch of government focused on long-term planning and sustainability.
## 6. Heritage Foundation Project 2025-Inspired Model
Drawing from some ideas in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025:
- Significantly reduce the size and scope of federal agencies.
- Devolve more power to state governments.
- Implement strict term limits for federal employees and elected officials.
- Strengthen protections for religious liberty and free speech.
- Reform the administrative state to reduce regulatory burdens.
- Emphasize school choice and education reform.
## 7. Blockchain-Based Governance Model
This futuristic model would leverage blockchain technology:
- Implement a decentralized decision-making system using blockchain.
- Create a national cryptocurrency to replace traditional currency.
- Use smart contracts for government services and policy implementation.
- Implement transparent, immutable record-keeping for all government actions.
- Allow for fluid, issue-based coalitions rather than fixed political parties.
These alternatives present a range of possibilities for restructuring the United States government, each with its own potential benefits and challenges. Any implementation would require careful consideration of legal, economic, and social implications.
## 1. European Union-Style Model
In this model, the United States would function similarly to the current European Union, with states taking on roles analogous to EU member states:
- A central governing body (similar to the European Commission) would handle overarching policies and coordination.
- Each state would retain significant autonomy in areas like taxation, education, and social policies.
- A common currency (the dollar) would be maintained, with a federal reserve system similar to the European Central Bank.
- Free movement of people and goods between states would be guaranteed.
- A directly elected parliament would represent citizens at the national level.
- A council of state governors would make decisions on major national policies.
## 2. Regional Confederation Model
This model would group states into larger regional entities:
- Create 5-7 regions based on geographic, economic, and cultural similarities (e.g., Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest, West Coast, Mountain West).
- Each region would have its own government and significant autonomy.
- A weak central government would handle defense, foreign policy, and interstate commerce.
- Regions would have the power to create their own laws and economic policies.
- A council of regional leaders would make decisions on national matters.
## 3. Direct Democracy Model
This alternative would emphasize more direct citizen participation:
- Implement a national digital voting system for major policy decisions.
- Reduce the power of representatives and increase citizen referendums.
- Create a randomly selected citizen assembly to propose and review legislation.
- Maintain a small executive branch for day-to-day operations and foreign policy.
- Implement term limits and recall elections for all elected officials.
## 4. Technocratic Governance Model
This model would prioritize expertise in governance:
- Replace elected officials with appointed experts in various fields.
- Create a merit-based system for selecting leaders and policymakers.
- Implement a national civil service exam for government positions.
- Establish advisory boards of scientists, economists, and other experts to guide policy decisions.
- Maintain democratic checks through citizen referendums on major decisions.
## 5. Dual Executive Model
This alternative would split executive power:
- Create two executive positions: a President for domestic affairs and a President for foreign affairs.
- Implement a parliamentary system for selecting the domestic President.
- Directly elect the foreign affairs President.
- Strengthen the legislative branch's oversight powers.
- Create a new branch of government focused on long-term planning and sustainability.
## 6. Heritage Foundation Project 2025-Inspired Model
Drawing from some ideas in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025:
- Significantly reduce the size and scope of federal agencies.
- Devolve more power to state governments.
- Implement strict term limits for federal employees and elected officials.
- Strengthen protections for religious liberty and free speech.
- Reform the administrative state to reduce regulatory burdens.
- Emphasize school choice and education reform.
## 7. Blockchain-Based Governance Model
This futuristic model would leverage blockchain technology:
- Implement a decentralized decision-making system using blockchain.
- Create a national cryptocurrency to replace traditional currency.
- Use smart contracts for government services and policy implementation.
- Implement transparent, immutable record-keeping for all government actions.
- Allow for fluid, issue-based coalitions rather than fixed political parties.
These alternatives present a range of possibilities for restructuring the United States government, each with its own potential benefits and challenges. Any implementation would require careful consideration of legal, economic, and social implications.
July 19, 2025
The title of Chemerinsky’s book suggests that the US democracy is fated to eventually fail. Ironically, he makes an eloquent case for the US never really having a democracy. Instead, multiple compromises made by our founders to achieve ratification were fatally flawed. Moreover, the authors of our constitution were not representative of the population. Instead, they were a group of wealthy, educated white men who held land and slaves. At bottom, these men mistrusted democracy. As a result of these two historical facts, what they framed was an oligarchy with a thin veneer of democracy aimed at maintaining control by elites. It seems that what they put in place has worked well for the elites. Thus, this framework persists to this day.
Chemerinsky makes the valid point that America muddled along for centuries with a deeply flawed constitution, buoyed by myths like “one man one vote,” “all men are created equal,” and “the rule of law.” Yet, the political elites never really bought into the idea of government by the people. Instead, a covert government by elites persisted until recent years when political events conspired to make this aim more overt. A constitutionally mandated unrepresentative Senate, a gerrymandered House, a Supreme Court that will remain biased for the foreseeable future and an Electoral College that almost guarantees that the Executive will not be the people’s choice have wreaked havoc on all of the levers of power in American Democracy.
Chemerinsky correctly argues that failure to address these core issues has resulted in a crisis that will hasten the demise of American democracy. All of the solutions he proposes, however, seem unrealistic. Although conceivable, legislative reforms seem unlikely considering that the levers of power are in the hands of the elites, who are unlikely to relinquish them. This becomes especially problematic with rulings like “Citizens’ United” and technological advances like “deep fakes.” Likewise, constitutional reforms seem all but impossible given the way that the constitution was written to be almost impossible to amend. Chemerinsky seems enamored with the idea of a second constitutional convention, but this also seems farfetched given the constraints that persist in a deeply polarized government and populace. His default solution is secession with Blue and Red Americas. Some form of peaceful no-fault divorce is appealing but is fraught with multiple complexities, which he explores in detail. Certainly, feelings of helplessness are understandable, but Chemerisky suggests that doing nothing, is really not a viable option either, since things seem to be falling apart at a more rapid pace than anyone ever conceived possible. Clearly, this collapse has been hastened greatly by a leader supported by powerful elites who seem to view him as a “useful idiot.” Furthermore, social unrest seems to be on the rise with constant threats of violence. In the final analysis, America needs to face its problems realistically and seek peaceful solutions.
Chemerinsky makes the valid point that America muddled along for centuries with a deeply flawed constitution, buoyed by myths like “one man one vote,” “all men are created equal,” and “the rule of law.” Yet, the political elites never really bought into the idea of government by the people. Instead, a covert government by elites persisted until recent years when political events conspired to make this aim more overt. A constitutionally mandated unrepresentative Senate, a gerrymandered House, a Supreme Court that will remain biased for the foreseeable future and an Electoral College that almost guarantees that the Executive will not be the people’s choice have wreaked havoc on all of the levers of power in American Democracy.
Chemerinsky correctly argues that failure to address these core issues has resulted in a crisis that will hasten the demise of American democracy. All of the solutions he proposes, however, seem unrealistic. Although conceivable, legislative reforms seem unlikely considering that the levers of power are in the hands of the elites, who are unlikely to relinquish them. This becomes especially problematic with rulings like “Citizens’ United” and technological advances like “deep fakes.” Likewise, constitutional reforms seem all but impossible given the way that the constitution was written to be almost impossible to amend. Chemerinsky seems enamored with the idea of a second constitutional convention, but this also seems farfetched given the constraints that persist in a deeply polarized government and populace. His default solution is secession with Blue and Red Americas. Some form of peaceful no-fault divorce is appealing but is fraught with multiple complexities, which he explores in detail. Certainly, feelings of helplessness are understandable, but Chemerisky suggests that doing nothing, is really not a viable option either, since things seem to be falling apart at a more rapid pace than anyone ever conceived possible. Clearly, this collapse has been hastened greatly by a leader supported by powerful elites who seem to view him as a “useful idiot.” Furthermore, social unrest seems to be on the rise with constant threats of violence. In the final analysis, America needs to face its problems realistically and seek peaceful solutions.
December 4, 2024
The aim of this book is really simple: to show that American democracy is in danger. In danger from increasing loss of confidence in public officials and institutions, increasing polarization, erosion of democratic norms, racial inequalities, etc. The author suggests that these problems have a cause buried in the foundational flaws of the constitution.
I will ignore the issues the author identified as problems (as stated) and dive right into the 3 problems I have with the book.
1. The first is a minor issue. Merely definitional. Is something flawed because it is no longer able to handle a current problem or because it was inadequate to handle a problem that existed at the time of its design? In other words, if there is an issue the constitutional structure is unable to handle efficiently today, does that make the constitution flawed or does that mean the political landscape has changed? The constitution was designed to prevent big states from overpowering smaller states and to make legislative changes slow and deliberate. If this is more of an obstacle today, it simply means the landscape has changed and that corresponding changes might be needed but it does not mean that it was flawed from the beginning.
2. This brings me to the second point which is that the author basis the argument on the assumption (tacit, I must say) that there is a governmental structure which has the inherent ability to solve societal issues. Such a structure doesn't exist.
3. There is no problem existing today that cannot exist within a different political structure. Changing the way the president is elected from electoral college to direct democracy will not make people less polarized. It will not make people more confident in public institutions. The flaws of systems are composed mostly of the incentives and dynamics of the people within the system itself.
To summarize, the problems the author identifies, if they are problems at all as stated, are not caused by the so-called flaws in the constitutions. Neither will they be resolved by the changes he proposes. This is a case where a doctor successfully identifies a disease, but fails to identify both the cause and the cure.
I will ignore the issues the author identified as problems (as stated) and dive right into the 3 problems I have with the book.
1. The first is a minor issue. Merely definitional. Is something flawed because it is no longer able to handle a current problem or because it was inadequate to handle a problem that existed at the time of its design? In other words, if there is an issue the constitutional structure is unable to handle efficiently today, does that make the constitution flawed or does that mean the political landscape has changed? The constitution was designed to prevent big states from overpowering smaller states and to make legislative changes slow and deliberate. If this is more of an obstacle today, it simply means the landscape has changed and that corresponding changes might be needed but it does not mean that it was flawed from the beginning.
2. This brings me to the second point which is that the author basis the argument on the assumption (tacit, I must say) that there is a governmental structure which has the inherent ability to solve societal issues. Such a structure doesn't exist.
3. There is no problem existing today that cannot exist within a different political structure. Changing the way the president is elected from electoral college to direct democracy will not make people less polarized. It will not make people more confident in public institutions. The flaws of systems are composed mostly of the incentives and dynamics of the people within the system itself.
To summarize, the problems the author identifies, if they are problems at all as stated, are not caused by the so-called flaws in the constitutions. Neither will they be resolved by the changes he proposes. This is a case where a doctor successfully identifies a disease, but fails to identify both the cause and the cure.
May 25, 2024
I wanted to give this one star, but because it is well-written, I settled on two. The novel is presented well, despite the narrative being false and flawed in terms of both practicality and liberal bias. I could argue that the U.S. Constitution and the United States itself are a republic, not a democracy. The issues the author raises are precisely why the founding fathers feared democracy and mob rule. To prevent population-heavy cities from dictating rule over the entire geographic United States, the Electoral College was established to protect all states and populations. Additionally, gerrymandering has been used by both political spectrums and is not solely a conservative issue. I won’t delve into these points further as the author, a political professor, has a liberal bias. However, I would state that without the U.S. being a republic, we would not have many of the views and rights, including those protecting religions, races, backgrounds, beliefs, and LGBT protections, because those views would never have had the chance to grow without the protections a republic provides. Is it perfect? No, of course not. Is there anything better? Not that I have seen. Modeling a democratic change that has proven to fail and then trying to sell that view under the title "No Democracy Lasts Forever" is quite the gaslight! Thanks for your opinion. Special thanks to the author and publisher for the reader copy.
December 8, 2025
This might be the only 3-star book that I would consider "required reading", just because the topic it discusses is so interesting. He does such a great job of laying out the challenges that I was leaning towards 4-stars until I got to his conclusion. I just think the idea of holding a new constituional convention and re-writing our governing framework is not going to work out the way he hopes. It feels like wishing on a monkey paw to fix the problems in your government. For every one good governance reform you manage to get consensus on, you are going to end up having to fight off an abortion ban or income tax repeal. It's especially puzzling when we have a process for amending the current Constitution (something we have done 27 times before). While not as satisfying as scrapping the whole thing and starting over, this is surely the most prudent way to fix our more entrenched problems. He also dedicates a lot of ink to the idea that the Senate is fundamentally flawed because smaller states have the same amount of representation as large ones. My issue with this is that populations are not static. One hundred years ago, California was a small state and Massachusetts was a large one. Now it is reversed. With the effects of climate change becoming more tangible over the next century, it may reverse again, with climate refugees leaving the desert Southwest for the more habitable New England region. The idea that we need to scrap our two century old governing framework largely because we don't like the current static balance of power amongst the states seems shortsighted.
January 7, 2025
Overall, I found this book to be a worthwhile read. There are some interesting points about unjust systems in the USA and its constitution.
Main points include:
1. The Electoral College should be abolished because it leads to unfair weighting of votes in different states and outright leads to some votes not mattering at all.
2. Political gerrymandering has been going on forever, and needs to stop
3. The Senate and House are increasingly not representative of the US's population
4. Filibusters should be abolished or restricted further to improve efficiency and fairness
5. Companies should not be able to donate unlimited amounts to political campaigns
6. Outlines changes that could be made with or without amendment to the Constitution, and each possibility's likelihood of succeeding.
Some small issues I have with the book include:
1. It does not define democracy or explain why democracy is the ideal form of government. Personally, I may not find that to be a fatal flaw, but it would strengthen the points made in the book, since much of them rely on claiming there to be a threat to democracy.
2. It over-explains some things and under-explains others
3. It is very repetitive in some topics. Sometimes I questioned if parts were copy-pasted.
Despite those issues, I still found that the ideas present in the book were worth the read.
Main points include:
1. The Electoral College should be abolished because it leads to unfair weighting of votes in different states and outright leads to some votes not mattering at all.
2. Political gerrymandering has been going on forever, and needs to stop
3. The Senate and House are increasingly not representative of the US's population
4. Filibusters should be abolished or restricted further to improve efficiency and fairness
5. Companies should not be able to donate unlimited amounts to political campaigns
6. Outlines changes that could be made with or without amendment to the Constitution, and each possibility's likelihood of succeeding.
Some small issues I have with the book include:
1. It does not define democracy or explain why democracy is the ideal form of government. Personally, I may not find that to be a fatal flaw, but it would strengthen the points made in the book, since much of them rely on claiming there to be a threat to democracy.
2. It over-explains some things and under-explains others
3. It is very repetitive in some topics. Sometimes I questioned if parts were copy-pasted.
Despite those issues, I still found that the ideas present in the book were worth the read.
May 20, 2025
The author highlights how a document written solely by a small group of white male landowners never represented the voice and interests of the people. Not back then, and certainly not now. We have lived too long under a document designed to thwart majority rule and deny equal protection under the law to everyone. The electoral college, of course, is one of the biggest flaws. Interestingly, the Constitution does not even require that states allow people to vote for president. Another big flaw is giving every state two senators, regardless of size. That might have been sort of OK when the largest state was only 12 times bigger than the smallest, but not now when the largest state has 68 times more people than the smallest. Senators representing only 25% of the population can block any legislation. The Supreme Court, with its lifetime terms (we are the only 1st world nation to give them life terms) has increasingly undermined democracy and heightened the constitutional crisis.
The book was endlessly repetitive, but still raised good questions and offered possible alternatives to having to rewrite the whole thing. But now that the current regime has used the antiquated document to entrench its minority rule, even the alternatives won’t get off the ground in our lifetimes. Authoritarianism, here we come.
The book was endlessly repetitive, but still raised good questions and offered possible alternatives to having to rewrite the whole thing. But now that the current regime has used the antiquated document to entrench its minority rule, even the alternatives won’t get off the ground in our lifetimes. Authoritarianism, here we come.
August 31, 2024
The United States is in a critical crisis of governance. Faith in the President, the Executive branch, Congress, and the Supreme Court are all in all-time lows. The author goes through why and his reasons are inherent to the system and fundamental. He calls for numerous changes to make America democratic - where the people rule as equals. The Electoral College is allowing Presidents to be elected with a clear minority of votes, each vote is unequal. Congress is controlled by minority portions of the population due to every state being equal in the Senate, gerrymandering, the super-majority filibuster in the Senate, unlimited contributions by corporations and the wealthy, and other causes. He lays out possible solutions, but also how they are unlikely because many currently wielding powercwill squelch them.
July 13, 2024
TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. IT HAD TO HAPPEN THIS WAY. TRUMP WON 2020 BUT THE PEOPLE NEEDED TO WAKE UP TO EXPOSE THE CORRUPTION IN DC AND AROUND THE WORLD. GREAT AWAKENING - PRECIPICE - STORM ⛈️- PREPARE YOUR BAGS AND 🍿 INEVITABILITY WINS. GOD WINS. TRUMP WINS. DECENTRALIZATION WINS. WORLD PEACE ENSUES. 💚 U ALL. SPREAD YOUR BLESSINGS. 💚 🎅 ✡️ 🐸 WWG1WGA - HTL - THE BEST IS YET TO COMEHERE TO SPREAD THE GQSPEL AND SHARE KNQWLEDGE. 💚 U ALL AND WISH YOU ALL SUCCESS AND BLESSINGS. SPREAD 💚 AND SHARE YOUR BLESSINGS WITH OTHERS. GOD BLESS YOU ALL AND MAY GOD BLESS 🇺🇸 TRUMP 2024SHEMA YISRAEL ADONAI ELOHANU ADONAI ECHAD 🎅 ✡️ BIBLICAL Revenge is, indeed, so sweet (See Mesillas Yeshorim Ch.11)
December 21, 2024
Fast, factual read that was equal parts informative and repetitive. Because of this styling, I do feel like I retained more of the central points, but sometimes the repetition was laborious. However, for those who despise policy, politics, and philosophy for their impracticality, verbose ideation, and lack of solutions, you would be pleased with the clarity and conciseness of the messages and suggestions here. Not earth shattering, but gives some nice topics for further discussion among those interested in the future of our democracy.
June 17, 2024
another giveaway book! it was interesting to read about the original creation of the Constitution in a way that wasn't incredibly complicated or confusing. i found the ideas about the Constitution's flaws and possible remedies compelling, the book really cements what is wrong with our current political system. relatively short! repetitive, but mostly in individual sentences and paragraphs rather than entire ideas or chapters.
January 30, 2025
If you are interested in truly understanding the United States constitution then you will enjoy this book. It’s detailed, backed up with facts, examples, and forward thinking ideas on how to breathe new life into a constitutional republic on life support because the pendulum of time is swinging hard right.
This old document needs to be amended to get in sync with the times or let’s start from scratch or a combination of the two.
This old document needs to be amended to get in sync with the times or let’s start from scratch or a combination of the two.
March 18, 2025
Chemerinsky got be through Con Law, but it was hard to see who the ideal audience for this book is. Anyone too interested in politics and history would know many (most) of the facts he outlines, and those not interested wouldn't pick up the book. Still, an interesting idea. When this administration is through it does seem the country will be in need of a new constitution as the current one is in the shredder.
July 26, 2025
Waffled between 3 and 4 stars. It’s a good book, but I think it needed editing. Would’ve been better as a long essay to make his argument as clear as possible. I actually really appreciate and support his radical ideas in this book and how it functions as a warning. However, I think it would’ve been a much stronger warning and argument for consideration of a new constitution without some of the wandering chapters.
April 1, 2024
This was an interesting critique of politics. The book starts with a historical analysis of the Constitution and politically significant events in early US history.
I should note that it might not be for everyone as it has a particular political leaning and criticism. Those that like to read political analyses might like this book.
* I received this copy from a Goodreads giveaway.
I should note that it might not be for everyone as it has a particular political leaning and criticism. Those that like to read political analyses might like this book.
* I received this copy from a Goodreads giveaway.
September 4, 2024
The ideas in this book are very clearly thought out and important to read and attempt to understand at this time of political distrust and discontent. There are a lot of items in this book that are repeated, over and over, making it seem like they were added to increase the page count versus presenting new ideas. Important to read but inflated by repetition.
September 15, 2024
The problem with books like is that they lay out a long list of problems and very little in the way of practical solutions. Though, to be fair, the author does acknowledge this. It is however, worth discussing, he says. I guess, but the only real solution I see to our lousy political system is the blue states simply leaving the union. The system, as one orange man likes to say, is rigged.
September 28, 2024
prescient & insightful info and perspective to ponder !
Excellent dissection of our Constitution that has no been able to get out of our own way forward the moral high ground , equality , opportunity & freedom for all Americas
Consequences anticipated and pathways to alter are proposed !
Excellent dissection of our Constitution that has no been able to get out of our own way forward the moral high ground , equality , opportunity & freedom for all Americas
Consequences anticipated and pathways to alter are proposed !
February 28, 2025
Good & important book. It is about the impediments to democracy in our government. The constitution, the presidency, the electoral college, the congress, the courts & the process of voting itself. Basically the book describes the corner we have painted ourselves into which essentially guaranteed a hostile takeover. It is not so powerful - alas - in describing how to fix this dilemma!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews