Howell and Moe
According to Levinson, the constitution contains one of the most dangerous features. He states that too many of the provision presented by the constitution endorses unjust or unproductive government. He argues that a president can easily engage in dramatic toils of power. The people can neither get rid of the incompetent leaders nor be assured that the government will follow the shattering attacks. Sanford Levinson argues that about the government in that it is in disarray. He states that supporting the evidence is hard to identify as he affirms that the federal government scarcely was cautious about the shutdown that occurred in 2010 and 2011. Hitches have textured states that Minnesota’s regime was shut down for three weeks in the year 2011 due to the disagreement of the budget. Additionally, the California government was forced to engage in informal unnoticed debt to pay public employees and creditors.
Levinson criticizes that the product of America’s political culture is not in crisis, but it is entrenched in the American constitution, both the state and federal. Therefore to achieve effective government, a fundamental constitution should be formulated. Levinson has critiqued what he regarded as the deficits of the democratic in the federal constitution. He addresses that for a new constitution’s call but not innovative elucidations of the constitutional provisions where the meaning is to be queried. Levinson argues about the state constitution and the federal constitution as he states that they receive more power shared by the government’s tress arms.
Howell and Moe state that the government has failed the citizens of the United States of America. They criticize that the government has failed in that the political institutions cannot effectively face modern society’s challenges and find the solution. They point out the United States constitution as the main perpetrator. They argue that framers designed the constitution as they made it simple, but the government that was created was un-fortified to face social problems that ascend. They state that the United States citizens are prisoners of the past being hampered by an archaic government that cannot sort operational policies. Howell and Moe argue that the constitution is the gateway to the unproductive government, stating that the path to achieving an operative government for current America is by having an influential presidency.
Howell and Moe argue that the constitution has caused congress’s inability to endorse the required policies and rules. They argue that congress subjugates the crucial position in the federal government. They refer to the congress’s shortcomings as inevitable as the constitution backs them, and the solution to the problem is by the amending the constitution by making the presidency more authoritative and projecting. They argue that the writer of the constitution believed in inequality of races and republicans and that their moral does not match modern America’s morals. They state that the constitution was formulated to fit a pre-modern World, and it is accurately a relic as the constitution would not fit the modern society. Additionally, Howell and Moe do not utterly blame the constitution or the authors but the citizens that decided to accept but not update the constitution that is so outdated.
Howell and Moe scrutinize Congress, referring to it as a central part of the American National Government, as they find congress lacking various attributes that can be amended. They cope that the congress did not work well as it is functional in the old days as per now it is found to be antiquated as it is not due to individual citizens that comprise congress, but it is a result of influences from members. Due to the setup of the congress’s constitution and the incentives, congress participants are found blind to concerns outside their states. Their ideologies focus only on short-term outcomes, and they only care about small outcomes but not on long-term outcomes. Additionally, Howell and Moe gaze to the presidency to protect the nation from the insufficient and unskilled legislature. They are also enthusiastic about elucidating why presidents are suited in institutions to overcome the shortcomings that arise due to congress.
The constitution of America instigates with the words of We the People. In the republican constitution, Barnett states that how debate arises shortly after the revolution tips the adoption of the innovative republican constitution. He also states how the struggles of the people slavery has led to the achievement of new formulate Republican Party. Barnett argues about the constitution’s legitimacy that it does not rest on the governing, but it is directing according to natural rights. He also argues that the U.S constitution is legit in that the people misinterpret it, and when correctly understood, it is legit. It is evident as he refers to the legislature that withstands the encumbrance to provide the necessary and set the person’s limit. Barnett’s view conflicts with recent repetition that the court divides freedom into two broad categories, including favored freedoms such as freedom of dialog and religion and freedom to receive treatment, which is also emphasized by Barnett. Disfavored freedoms include the exchange of private property and earning a living. Barnett introduces a persuasive case that the approach he follows is more unswerving with the constitution’s innovative denotation, and it is likely to ensure there is freedom.
Barnett argues between the two different constructions of the constitution, where each perspective lies from different conjectures. He states that a person accepts the presumptions to achieve happiness as a person must do what is not legal or be left with the belief that the government may do whatever is not verboten. Additionally, Barnett argues by tracing the republican’s antiquity and the democratic constitutions through diverse periods of American history. He states that the initiators enacted a republican visualization on the federal government, including complex constrictions on the federal power. Barnet explains how the original constitution’s norms were implemented to end slavery that lasted before the civil war. States mandated to protect slaves did not commit themselves to protect them, but they fled the blacks and white opponents of slavery. Barnett accentuates that economic freedom is significant to an individual’s independence. He also elucidates how judicial fortification of federalism through the implementation of organizational confines on federal power.
Barnett smidgens the history of struggles between the republican and democratic ways views to the recent day. Barnett bases his arguments as he describes the early twentieth century stating the progressing and deals that championed the democratic constitution. He also states individual authority theory, concluding judicial protection for a broad range of discrete freedoms, both economic and non-economic. Barnet notes that the constitution governs people that the power is surrogated to an issue of the government official. The people are never supreme, except each individual has a domain of liberty within which the government and individual’s power cannot infringe. In that context, it is when all the people can be under the sovereign. He argues that as he identifies the variation of the constitutional theory. Barnett defines the republican constitution as it is grounded on the standard of individual sovereignty.
Barnett sturdily argues that the importance of sovereignty reinforces the instance of aggressive judicial review. He states that robust judiciary confines power contained by the government officials, and it as a result of this justifies the sovereignty of all the citizens, which is opposed to only the powers exercised by momentary dogmatic majorities and political leaders. Barnett’s opinions are different from the old defense enacted of judicial reviews, which contends that it can influence the majority’s democracy, like defending the liberty of speech and the right to vote. His arguments prove that judicial protection for citizens’ rights is the same rights that are endorsed to aid the majority’s political process conceivable. Barnet pursues that there should be the implementation of stringent limits on democratic majorities to guard the people from sovereignty consequences. His arguments are grounded in elucidating judicial review, endorsing sovereignty, and claiming that it is anti-democratic, therefore against sovereignty.