060. Convention Rules

 26-08-18 This might be boring - dominated by lawyer litigation, if they do not have a system they already agree to.

050. Delegate Qualifications

 26-08-18: The delegate qualification system can be divided into at least six main categories.

040. Formatting

 26-08-18: The Six-part system is only concerned with the order of the first three levels of the charter articles.

010. State of the Government

 26-08-18: The political polarization we are experiencing was supposed to be pacified, but the Twelfth Amendment removed the pacifier.

020. Legacy Constructs

 26-08-18: Possibly all of the constructs that cannot be altered  for ratification

Another Political Science Game-Changer

 26-08-04: Upon browsing the 320.9 section of the downtown library, I encountered this title.

If We Can Keep It: How the Republic Collapsed and How it Might be Saved

Michael Tomasky

Either Mr. Tomasky or his publishing agent is a serious narcissist

A game-changing account of the deep roots of political polarization in America and, finally a fourteen-point agenda for how to fix it.

That is how the cover jacket introduces the blurbs. I only recognize two of the five distinguished reviewers: Jeffrey Toobin and Joy Reid. Upon review of the first sentence, I realized Mr. Tomasky is an unrepentant libtard. "The Constitutional Convention passes the Connecticut Compromise by a vote, 5-4-1, creating the inherently unrepresentative United States Senate." 

Only Libtards describe the Senate as something other than what it is supposed to be. I cannot believe Mr. Tomasky does not understand that the Senate is supposed to represent the states. The erroneous Seventeenth Amendment diverted the noble intention. The Amazon site for the book changes the blurb introduction.

A game-changing account of the deep roots of political polarization in America, including an audacious fourteen-point agenda for how to fix it.

It appears that the powers that be explained to Mr. Tomasky and his agent that there are a lot of books out there with suggestions for how to fix the partisan problem, much less the governing problem. Tomasky does not hide his game-changing fourteen points until the end of the book, he outlines them at the beginning. Which is commendable, because ultimately that is what matters. He divides them into two groups:

Political Fixes:

1. End Partisan Gerrymandering
2. Bring Back At-Large Congressional Elections
3. Introduce Ranked-Choice Voting to Congressional Elections
4. Expand the House of Representatives to 500 Members
5. Eliminate the Filibuster
6. Get rid of the Electoral College (or Make it Obey the Popular Vote)
7. Revive Moderate Republicanism

Social and Cultural Fixes:

1. Establish "Foreign" Interstate College-Student Exchange Programs Between Blue and Red States
2. Reduce College to Three Years and Make Year Four a Service Year
3. Expand Student Exchange Programs to High Schools
4. Make Large National Employers Offer Similar Exchange Programs for Employees
5. Vastly Expand Civics Education
6. Insist on a Left that Doesn't Contribute to the Fracture
7. Demand that Corporate and Business Leaders Commit to Social Responsibility.

Mr. Tomasky is obviously a closet Communist!

Again, as I am sure I will find in every political science scholar's book, there is no consideration of reformulating the separation of government powers. I am the only proponent of such a theory.

Constitutional Blasphemy

Relic: How Our Constitution Undermines Effective Government--and Why We Need a More Powerful Presidency

William G. Howell

Terry M. Moe

In a recent query of my own slogan, "The Constitution is junk," I encountered this title. Published in 2016. It seemed familiar, but I have no file on it in my collection of files and notes. I would have remembered the "more powerful presidency." I really want to read this, but I am out of the habit of reading books. I want to see if I can follow their line of reasoning to a "More Powerful Presidency." That seems absurd - doesn't it?

These are a couple of highly respected political science professors at big-time universities. The four blurbs are good endorsements. I recognize Sanford Levinston. I am sure I have written him once.

Howell and Moe deserve immense credit for 'connecting the dots' between our dangerously dysfunctional political system and an outmoded Constitution. One can only admire their willingness to challenge the cult of the Constitution that affects our political culture and hope their book gets widespread attention that it so richly desreves.

Two of the other blurbs suggest that their theory will "trigger" and "set the terms" for a debate. 

I have read just a little bit. The introduction and the start of the first chapter, and they take the time to ease the reader into understanding the issues that the American Founders were concerned with and how that shaped their formulation of the government back then. I learned that Montisquieu posed the bicameral legislature, which supports my unpublished theory that the Great Compromise is a half-truth. I am disappointed that they define the Senate as representative of the elite class rather than the laws of the states, which is what I believe should be the preferred intention, if it was not the intention of the Founders.

They are also claiming that the Founders intended for the judiciary to interpret and review the law, which contradicts my understanding of the outcome of the Marbury versus Madison Supreme Court ruling.

If I don't get anything else from their book, it is that this book was unable to trigger the debate after ten years.