Stanford Levinson The Ratification Referendum Summary

America has been described as the greatest country in the world. In American classrooms students are taught that America is the pinnacle of freedom to the rest of the world. No other country in the world could ever be the democracy that America is. Despite this, there are many who would argue against the limits of how democratic the Unites States actually is. Public polls indicate that many Americans are unsatisfied with the American government. Specifically, Americans are unsatisfied with how the government operates. Stanford Levinson argues in his article, “The Ratification Referendum” that calling for a new constitutional convention is the solution. Others, Eric Lane and Michael Oreskes, argue in their editorial, “We,” that the only fault …show more content…
Consequently, this leads to the idea that changing the system is the best option to benefit their beliefs. Stanford Levinson would argue that it is the peoples’ right to call for a new convention and do so. This right is endowed in some States’ constitutions but it is not declared in the United States Constitution. Levinson reasons that although the right to call for a new convention is not spelled out in the Constitution, the act would in no way be “un-American.” And if one can overcome the veneration for our founding fathers and accept the failure that is the Constitution, the will for change is not far behind. On the contrary, Eric Lane and Michael Oreskes argue the only flaw in the Constitution is the lack of faith and knowledge from its constituents. Articles show a steady decline in civic understanding. Narratives in history prove that the reason behind irrational actions is, more often than not, the lack of tolerance. For example, early Americans never took the time to understand and appreciate the Native American culture and from the beginning referred to the Natives as savages. In doing so, early American explorers and colonists inadvertently wrecked the Native American population. Misunderstanding something is not justification for wanting to change it. However, it is valid to criticize the …show more content…
Some argue the key to democracy is lack of power in the government. Others argue, the constitution and government officials must protect rights and promote equality which ultimately leads to expansion in the size and power of government. It is certainly imperative to always be vigilant in monitoring the power of the government, but to be constantly paranoid about government action is harmful to everyday society. While one may be caught up in monitoring government activity, at the same time one could be active in his/her civic duty and ultimately benefiting society. The Constitution contains the Bill of Rights, which is the best example for explaining the limit of power the U.S. government has. The founding fathers recognized the importance of limited government which is why the Constitution is written the way it