I’m curious what you think about the interpretations of the authors of these two books, recently reviewed in the New York Times. I’d especially like your reaction to the proposals of University of Virginia Prof. Larry Sabato, detailed in the second half of the review. I’m so curious, so interested in your reaction, in fact, that I’m willing to offer extra credit for a thoughtful response. Do so by Friday before class.
Books on the Constitution
November 28th, 2007 | extra credit |
10 comments ↓
As the author states in his conclusion, many would not consider changing the Constitution because they revere it as a sacred document. After reading this article, I’ve discovered I am one of those people. Our Constitution works well enough, indeed I believe it is one of the most fair in the world but it is not perfect. I would need to read his book to fully comprehend his reasoning behind some of his improvements but I can understand a few. He might want our president’s term to be longer so that one administration can be in office long enough to achieve something. This is a reasonable argument but I don’t think it will be applied anytime soon because we Americans like immediate results and when we don’t get them we want new leadership. As for the Senate representing more the size of the state than equal representation, I agree there too. It isn’t fair for the voices of small state citizens to weigh more than those of large state citizens. Sabato appears to want a more powerful government by making it larger. I’m not sure if we need the government any more involved in our lives than it already it but it would benefit the nation as a whole to widen and diversify our leadership.
After reading this article, I was a little surprised at myself. Sabato’s desire for many amendments in the constitution helped me realize that I viewed the constitution as a historical document more so than what it actually is. In order for me to really understand the constitution instead of merely accepting it, I need to understand the virtues and problems in the constitution like Dahl says. I immediately agreed with Sabato’s first idea to amend, which was that small states should not have as many senators as the more populated states. I agree with these ideas because it gives the senators from less populated area to have the same influence on decisions as senators who represent far more people. Although I share this belief with Sabato, I would be afraid of the actual amendment due to the possible societal trouble that would occur as a result. Sabato’s other ideas for reforming the government are all fine–not unfair, but I would need more information in order to understand why they are better than the current system. Sabato’s ideas are interesting and possibly beneficial for the nation, but I have to wonder if these changes (even if only a few were pursued)would take a toll on society and culture in the United States.
After reading this article my views of our Constitution have not changed, and I think that if I were to read the books mentioned that I would receive more insight to new changes of the Constitution, but I would continue to prefer the one we have now. The framers of the Constitution created it the best interest of the public and thus far it has for the most part served us well. I think the news ideas mentioned might create a positive change but for the most part would cause extreme controversy. For example the “small-state stranglehold on the Senate” mentioned does not seem fair but it would also be hard to create a different but fair distribution for the Senate. I think that there are definetly problems but I think the Constitution we have now should not be altered.
Reading this document opened my eyes to the many arguments that can be made about the Constitution. I did not realize that people found the Constitution needed to be updated, because I am one of those who see it as sacred. Like the article said, many of the framers at the convention possessed practical and philosophical knowledge. The Constituion has sufficed for roughly 200 years, and though our country is not completely fair, so to speak, what country is? The idea of having less senators for smaller states is a good one, and maybe that should be ratified. Changing the presidency to six years is a catch-22 to me, because the president might be a good one, and six year terms might greatly benefit the country. On the other side though, they could be a horrible president, and the country would be stuck with them for two extra years. Updating the Constitution might be revive it, but it would change the culture and politics in America. The Constitution is part of America’s identity, and one of the celebrated parts of our history. I feel the way the Constitution is currently is the best way and though change may be revitalizing, it is not necessary.
After reading this article I still hold my same views on our constitution. However, I do have conflicting opinions on whether the framers of the constitution could have predicted how our nation’s path was going to play out. I believe in Sabato’s proposals on expanding the senate in larger states to have representation based on population but I do not agree with his plan to extend the president’s term by two years because in my mind it would be more detrimental than benificial. Although these ideas might benefit our country in the long run, they could cause great social turmoil due to conflicting opinions. Ultimately I think that our constitution should not be changed because the framers created it in order to prevent uncertainty and chaos and changing it could cause just that.
Although I believe the Constitution is an extremely important historical document in our country’s past and in the histories of countries who followed suit, I think some of Mr. Sabato’s ideas for change are reasonable and even more beneficial to the people of our country. While the Constitution seems to be running our country fairly smoothly today, there are some issues- such as the budget, majorities and other things that are either corrupted, badly managed or simply dysfunctional. Mr. Sabato’s ideas for the increase in Senate and House of Representatives seem to be good ideas because they allow more voices of the people to be heard. I see Mr. Sabato’s changes as important views in the politics of our country to day and I even agree with some (if not most) of them, but as I said before the Constitution is a vital text in our country that still functions well and before we make any major alterations we need to thing long and hard about what, how, when and why we are changing significant portions of it.
First, the review of the first book seemed very general and boring. I wasn’t very impressed by the review and Sabato’s ideas stood out much more to me. In reading the review of Sabato’s book, I too realized some of my assumptions about the Constitution. I assumed that, because of maybe my ignorance but also the lack of communication to us as a people, that I do not think of amendments to the Constitution as being frequent. It struck me when I read the review that if the Constitution were to add the amendments Sabato proposes, then America as a whole would have to essentially go through a whole new period of adjustment like she did after the initial adoption of the Constitution. I definitely agreed that the equality of representation should be changed to allot larger states more representation; however, this would pose a large problem with all the smaller states. The other amendments he suggests all seemed to be extensions of terms-which could seem, to the typical citizen, to be a gradual centralization of the government. Thus, I came to the conclusion after reading the article that it would take a lot of explanation and understanding to amend the Constitution in such a way as Sabato proposes; however, we cannot go on forever fearing amendments, for as our country grows and changes we have to remember that the Constitution was written post-rebellion in the late 1700s and that changes in the times require changes in the government.
I think that all of Professor Sabato’s proposals are all interesting points, some are actually good ones as well. Expanding the diversity of the senate is a good idea, because former presidents and vice-presidents should have the same opportunity to have continued involvement in the government as anyone else. I also like the idea of a larger senate and a balanced budget, considering the issues we’re having with our budgets now, and the 55% majority also makes sense because having 49% of people unhappy about a legislation is nowhere near democracy. I don’t, however, approve of changing the president’s term length because I like the fact that bad administrations can be gone after only four years. As for giving larger states more representative, I don’t think that’s necessarily a good idea because although it might make the people more equally represented, the states would no longer have equal say in matters and then the large states could completely override the wishes of the smaller states. The fact that the House is proportionate representation accounts for all men being equal, but all states must be equal too therefore a house of equal weight, the Senate, must have equal representation to be more fair to the state system.
Reading this was very intersting to me because just a few weeks ago in English we were discussing Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government” in which he discusses the very issue of revolutionizing our government. I agree with his argument that what the Founding Fathers did was something anyone can do; at any time people can express their views and try to change something they see negatively affecting the country. People have become so wrapped up in Madison and the other original revolutionizers its as if no one else can propose new ideas, but I think if someone such as Sabato wants to try and pass new ammendments and rethink parts of the constitution I fully support him. It would be interesting to read his work because I do not know why he would want to make a presidency last six years with an additional two. I support Sabato’s individualism and attempt at what he believes are necessary changes to America’s government because I think it is important that we not get sucked into a bubble thinking that a political system created two hundred years ago will last perfectly forever.
When I began reading this article my first thoughts were about the flaws of the constitution and how change needs to occur. However, after reading the views of those who wish for reform, especially Sabato, I began to realize how well our constitution works. I beleive that the possible reforms proposed by Sabato are unnecessary and would cause great controversy. The first reform, giving larger states more representatives in Senate would only open a door for opposition. Looking in the past, when this idea was first proposed to be part of our constitution it resulted in a lot of controversy from small states and was the cause for the New Jersey plan. Sabato’s idea of extending the term of the presidency would also be a weak reform to the constitution, because it would allow one party to rule for six years. After reading the article, I appreciate more the rules laid out in our constitution
Leave a Comment