a. >> we're joined by teenine

presser of a lot at the university of texas in the author of this book and among others, it "constitutional faith" faith", professor levinson do americans have too much faith in the constitution? >> guest: yes. gries think one of the exception auspex of the united states is a great deal a discussion about american exception of the senate is what is directed at the united states constitution. there is no other country in the world i'm aware of that has such a veneration of its national constitution. it is also interesting to compare with the 50 state

constitutions that most americans are not aware they live under a state constitution is rosen national one and the beat massachusetts because john adams drafted in 1780 it is in fact, the oldest constitution but otherwise there is no sense of generation and if state constitutions most of had around three constitutions in georgia and louisiana have had 21 between the two of them and there is a much more instrumental what has it done for us lately? misstates our zero men did all the time some people use that as a criticism actually think that maybe a strings united states constitution hardly because it is the most difficult to amend in

the entire world partly because of this degree of generation has been amended extraordinarily rare leap record you put the bill of rights 21 side that is really part of the politics of the original ratification process, cents 1791 there have been 17 amendments and that is extraordinarily few. if these to all sorts of consequences from my perspective one of the consequences is that the constitution is tremendously out of state with regard to the basic structures that are very much the ones given in 1787 but what lawyers have come to call in formal

amendment where congress or the president walked aggressively than the supreme court will uphold it or obligation the supreme court is innovative and some of the american states may actually be the subject of formal amendment in this country takes place in the informal way and in part because of the mixture in anybody who suggests the amendment will run ahead of nine and how do you think of amending our perfect constitution?

i wish to have a popular dialogue that address the need for more amendment. one thing i find very interesting about the presidential race that is already occurring is that it's even to go these candidates fall over themselves to compete to which loves the constitution more than the other but even though they love it there would like to see some other in -- certain things changed so with the election of senators it is important because prior to back, they were formally chosen by state legislatures and you

could make a plausible argument the senate had something to do to protect federalism because it could construct the story whereby senators to keep their jobs 1/2 to have the a good will of state legislators and this meant and once they are all elected didn't need to worry about big government. so from my perspective the modern said it is nothing more than affirmative-action program for the residents of the small states and of all affirmative-action programs in the country this is probably the least sensible

that is why they have the most ridiculous the federation for the constitution in the framers themselves. if there was no precedent for the united states constitution but they were in a very hot philadelphia suburb trying to figure out the first draft and i think it would have been astonished at the fact and has been new national convention since 1787 of the article provide -- article by provides for the operation avoid it down very few amendments. >> host: professor levinson in your view does the constitution and prohibit progress or stand in the way? >> guest: i don't begin

prohibits but it does stanton the way and that the framers in 77 were basically suspicious of democracy even if compared to other political systems at the time was more democratic. if you compare to the 20th bid to do first centuries it is significantly undemocratic. one of the things they were fearful of with that democratic tilts they were filled kurt -- fearful of what they call popular passion with the great

unwashed to put been all sorts of veto points. we have a bicameral system that means for any bill to become a lot of pass to pass in identical form in both the house in the senate. that is not written in stone with the very idea if there are bicameral systems around the world we have a dreadful

policy look at the undue influence of the senate that the house got to make agricultural policy we would have quite different policies it is not simply bicameral as of makes it able to pass the bicameral system but the try cameral system because of a presidential veto. in this not the use of the

veto of the means as one individual can just wipe out legislations supported by 60% to both the house in the senate, that is not a good enough because it takes two-thirds of each house to override the also perry threatened to veto the legislation goes to the members of congress to pull back. and sometimes to make compromises. and those who like the constitution more than i do would say it stands in the way of falling back.

the constitution makes it difficult to pass any legislation. as a political liberal i could come up with the a great deal of legislation that too what the country needs a of the constitution as a structure established by the constitution make it very difficult if i were a "politico" conservative i did come up with a different light in the of legislation that i thought was tremendously important either by a dat of a strong medical care bill i would like a single para system. >> host: how does that fit into the constitution? >> i think that was never a

real starter because the senate would block it so putting to one side would ever tendencies so bob has to compromise i think he also realized it was hopeless to get a stronger bill then he got in the senate and rear all familiar with the sauce did like compromises and also ben nelson to get to the 60th vote not only do need 50 votes but the modern senate is the filibuster but if i were a political conservative who thought the affordable care act is terrible and should be repealed the soon as possible, it is not unrealistic to imagine a bomb would be reelected in

2012 and the republican party will continue to control the house and gained the senate. one would expect them that you may very well expect h.r.1 that they would call obamacare it would be repealed but if i was a conservative i would be furious to say we have a national debate, we will of the house in the senate but it really doesn't matter because this one person can block legislation. i really do think that americans spend the insufficient amount of top -- amount of time thinking of issues as they were ever talked maybe when

they were in the seventh grade because what i really talking about is what used to be the subject matter of very old fashioned six class is how many overturning the constitution most people find the subjects extraordinarily boring. they want to talk about rights, what can you say without being thrown in jail? affirmative-action in. slew day and at this point* the civics course of the issue once they realize why it is that we cannot address a national political system

and what the supreme court does frankly is of peripheral importance for issues like medical care, a climate change but there are zero sets of issues that are perceived as having a liberal tilt or having a conservative tilt but what most people agree on that you find this increasingly in newspaper columns, at the pundits write or the editorials that the government is dysfunctional and tom friedman describes

this and what upsets me who is very, very smart and he recognizes i believe, correctly, our political system is in trouble but he does not connect the dots between the constitution itself in some of the explanations for those functionality is and i don't think it is all the constitution to talk to other sorts of general problems but i do think it makes its own negative contribution to the president in happiness where current polling data shows congress has approval rates of 12 or 14% and at that level it cannot be explained on grounds of partisanship. you might imagine and democrats alike

conflict -- congress republicans would but when it is 12%, one of the things that you know, in the overwhelming amount of the country of really does feel alienated from its political system. >> host: when you go back to the original intent of the founders i'd like you to expound on that phrase original intent but was it part of their intent to protect the minority to avoid for allowing for trend the constitutional amendment such as prohibition? >> guest: no doubt they were concerned with putting impediments in the way of what i would call democratic decision making that is majority rule. the problem with focusing in

a general way to protect minorities is which are you most concerned about? which it deserves protection and how does the constitution protect these minorities? if you read the framers it is fair to say as a minority they were most concerned about people with property and it is made very clear in the federalist paper the principal justification for urged judicial review written by alexander hamilton were he said plausibly that if we became a more democratic system given that the majority of the country is the have not they would use their political power to take from the house of the great thing of the supreme court as it tried to protect the

property of those against redistributive legislation is shifting to the have nots. also the case of the various impedimenta was mentioning it is our way to protect the status quo. will most important status quo was protecting the current distribution of wealth to try to prevent to the majority from change in that distribution but as i said a few minutes ago that minority that is most strongly protected by our structural constitution they have a disproportionate power in the senate and i

think it would be telling if a proponent of what we generally do as affirmative action in american politics, as somebody who is concerned about eight particular racial or ethnic minorities said in addition to putting the thumb on the scale to a mid people to college or hiring people for jobs let's give members of this group 20 extra votes. that would be viewed as an american and wildly off the mark but then you look at wyoming where the votes a beach resident is worth 70 times the vote of somebody

from california and with regard to this still disputed election of 2000 where most of anger and debate whispers but also the case that george debut bush won the election because by carrying the three states of north dakota, south dakota he got nine electoral votes where and now more by winning new mexico that has the same total population as the two decoder is in wyoming only got five electoral votes. that made all of the difference but it was not viewed of anything to be concerned about one the astonishing thing is if the

aftermath is there was so little debate of the electoral college which is another feature of our political system that serves us very, very bad play in i see point* one of the reasons it got so little attention not mean -- merely the federation because the gallup poll has shown since 1844 that a majority of americans if you ask them straight up or down, would replace the electoral college was popular election but you also run into the view nothing can be done because it is next to a possible cahal -- with the constitution so like the 17th amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage nobody

seriously believes that any of these amendments will be adopted it in the case of the flag-burning amendment amendment, it will have no genuine impact if one is concerned as imf the structural impediments then nothing will change. those who support the repeal are not crazy and it is unfortunate that liberals who oppose it do so by saying it is crazy rather than say it was a very good addition to the constitution there is no reason to have

it by the legislatures you do what the electorate to pick our officials and ultimately that is why we would have a direct elections. >> host: in then do after word from your book you originally wrote in 1988, this is 2011 after words, one of the major points as the founders were fully aware they had written the imperfect document and expected it to be amended as americans learned of the of less than of experience from living under it. we have the most fundamental aspect of their vision but instead one could even find in a magazine like the nation in an attack on tea party that says ordinary americans love the constitution at least as much as the far right

ideologues. it is our constitution and it is time to take a back" then you're right i am one american and who very definitely does not love the constitution and therefore has lost whatever faith i might have had the up the conversation all possibilities were enough to justify. >> guest: i wrote it and i believe that. i don't to say i am very, very serious when i say when i think the preamble is inspiring and we think about the preamble more than redo because that tells us the point* of this enterprise to establish justice and i

think we ought to be inspired by the vision of the framers but then i think i need to ask to what extent is the system that they gave us providing a way to establish justice for the liberty of the white? there are would be much more critical and apropos of that quotation that you read that was written by a good friend of mine but i do have respect for some members of the tea party because along with what i do think is excessive federation is also able to connect the dots to say if you want to

reinvigorate a strong sense of states' rights and power called whatever you will, then it might help if the legislatures were once again in the power to elect the senators. i don't share that vision but is a valuable conversation to have a in to say what i commend in them or the balanced-budget amendment that i also strongly opposed budget it does serve as a way to initiate conversation about what are the implications of adopting certain structures of government? to say i like the bill of rights and the 14th amendment not to tear up the constitution in everything in it, but i have come to

believe those most important parts are the ones that we don't talk about are the structural provisions because at least since world war ii like on the bill of rights for the 14th amendment and that is a very big thing. to be very could call the way it is taught in moscow because we focus so obsessively on what the supreme court does a and even those high school said duties courses of government, they spend most of their time talking about

the rights provisions because they're fun to talk about in to convey a sense to the students like bicameral listen and the veto the way to amend the constitution are just don't and boring and not worth talking about and that is just a fundamental mistake if you try to understand both how the system works in much more relevant the why people are so angry these days. they just don't feel that they are being well served by their government. i think they are right. then you ask why not? part of the reason is the structures that make seventh them systematically near impossible to respond adequately to the challenges

of the 21st century. >> host: what about the back of a cardis system that the british have? does that work better? >> that is a very important question. i have come to believe there is a real strength too low a parliamentary system and by definition it means if u.n. the election and you can tell because the party that takes over can really do things and of course, maybe we move too quickly or they pass bad legislation but this is a sense of the elections really counting and it is certainly difficult to look at the united kingdom to say they have had a noticeably worse

system of government based on whatever criteria you wish. one of the things that i advocates in the book guide published most recently that i allude to in the after words, i would like to see a new constitutional convention and my fantasy is that it would last two years if the people at the convention in, i have or the unlisted c-span2 broadcast the ultimate reality tv show that they would do what james madison did touse did he different kinds of political systems not only all over the world but also within the united states i mentioned earlier this state constitutions one

interesting thing about the american constitutions is how different from many of them looked from the united states for pro i have come to believe the united states was written and ratified at the last possible historical moment to get a constitution as basically undemocratic as united states constitution is. even looking after words you find very different kinds of constitutions for better or worse. by 1846 the new york constitutional convention which was very influential house adopted the practice of electing judges. most judges are elected lower electorally accountable. this is very controversial and a lot of people don't

like it but there is some interesting aspects in something to be said s those to criticize but as you move to the west coast you find much more direct democracy and the ability of people to go around the legislature in the united states constitution is committed exclusively too representative democracy. not one iota of direct democracy in the united states constitution. 49 out of 50 states have some element of direct democracy and many of us think immediately of california and it is always a controversial state but may also has direct democracy seto coupled with

the electorate in me and that was able to vote down the same-sex marriage law that passed the maine legislature passed by the governor and given my views kumbaya very, very sorry the main electric repealed the law. but that being said actually like a political system where the aroused the electorate can respond to legislation passed by the legislature or the congress and i think at the national level we would be better off if we had an element of direct democracy so i really do think that we can say yes i love parts of the constitution but a lot of it

is distinctly of lovable and we should try to make it be more lovable it is not entitled to our unconditional love may be our children in spouses are common but not the constitution. >> host: we're on the campus of university of texas jockeying with professor sanford levinson talking about his book "constitutional faith" the cover is this the imagery are supposed to get? >> or a stone tablets it? >> first of all, i am very grateful for the university press both for reprinting this book with the after words after 25 years i also like the cover a great deal. , i think you are right and

does invoke the ten commandments, a written in stone aspect, but i think also you can see in it elements of the gravestone. the constitution's have lifetimes the first constitution the articles of confederation was decidedly unromantic we've joked by the framers in philadelphia because they saw it while the dysfunctional. but that was their view in a colleague of mine at university of texas co-author of the book on the endurance and if you look all over the world the

average length of a constitution is 18 years. you can look at the experience a radio voice to say the first lasted six years and our second to any real way lasted only until the bloodiest civil war up to that time in in part and not in spite of that but because of it the constitution is radically transformed or attempted to be radically transformed but in some ways that what was is reconstructed ideally would not only defeat itself but also a constitution to

prove to be unfortunate to say the least with regard the ability to face the problem of slavery in a second to to try a2 face the problem to integrate the former population and to the full body of american citizens but of course, that has been the degree to an issue since 1868 and lives with us today. there is still the issue to what extent the constitution may not need additional reformation in order to achieve not only are most

elected judges but with two exceptions, they all have limits on how long they can serve.

and my own view, i am with rick perry on this one who calls for putting limits on the number of years you can be of the u.s. supreme court per croix do not think you have to be a political conservative in order to believe that makes in a great deal of sense my preferences be the 18 year term but to think it is crazy to have this system of life tenure it is eliminating the only two states that have life tenure our rhode island and new hampshire which are old states put all the others have decided they the judiciary's but they like the judges more or less but there is a time for them to go. >> host: we're down here because of the texas book

festival and you mentioned next year you and your wife did your daughter all have new books coming out. >> guest: i am so glad that you asked. mind is a book published by oxford university press talks about the 51 constitutions and my daughter from austin originally teaches at harvard graduate school of education and has a book published by harvard university press called no citizen left behind. is very much about civic education in the extent to which we do or do not empowers children to imagine themselves as active citizens when they grow up and my wife has a wonderful

book written basically for the in nine year-old's of the children's march in birmingham called we've got good job and it focuses on four african americans who took part of our were parts of the monumental event because the older viewers may remember the fire hoses and what i suspect they don't remember is the fire hoses were trained on children some as young as nine years old and one of the subjects was a nine year-old to spent one week in jail and it is a gripping book published