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 I learned that Montisquieu posed the bicameral legislature, which supports my unpublished theory that the Great Compromise is a half-truth.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.

Four more blurbs inside the book. A couple more referencing the great debate. A couple from Mr. Jefferson's University, but not Professor Sabato.

Their description of the broken Congress is well done. The anecdote explains how an efficient bill composed by a presidential committee on poverty was converted into an inefficient law because the Congress members each needed a piece of the pie.

There have been a couple of lines about the oath of office. One is playing with the sequence of events  of the election to the oath of office for the sovereignty of the presidency

I encountered the thought of not requiring the US4CC president to recite a pledge. My intuition leads me to see the US4CC president as a great advisor to the government and not limited by the Constitution, as the judiciary is. 

So, upon reading their book, I learned something that I have wondered about in the past: how the presidents sidestep the Senate confirmation of international treaties. Page 154 describes it concisely:

While the Constitution requires that treaties be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate before becoming law, presidents long ago- during the 1800s - began calling certain negotiated arrangements with other nation"executive agreements" that have the same force of law as treaties but did not need to go through Congress, and the Supreme Court eventually gave it's explicit consent.

And they use that to justify their description of an amendment to make the presidency more powerful in the crafting of legislation. Whereas I always thought that the purpose of the cabinet secretaries was to draft legislation, somehow that is not allowed because of the separation of powers. 

I devised a theory that the secretaries would draft legislation for the congress to vote, because the Congress members were not required to write legislation, just vote on proposals. The security departments were the one's who understood what they needed, and that fulfilled the system