This is from Sandy Levinson’s post:

The Constitution obviously didn’t live up to the description in 1787 inasmuch as it was stunningly indifferent to the freedom of slaves (for starters), nor did it function even to preserve the Union, as Mark Graber has brilliantly demonstrated in his book on Dred Scott, given the built-in regionalism in Congress owing to the fact that every single member of Congress is a locally-elected official with no incentive (other than the desire to run for President) to think of a broader, national interest. And the most controversial part of Mark’s book is his not-so-implicit criticism of a system of presidential election that put Abraham Lincoln in the White House with 40% of a completely regional popular vote. But, of course, that is old news, and one might believe that everything was cured by the Reconstruction Amendments (even though that is obviously not the case).

…

o be sure, it would probably be a good thing for students to debate issues like freedom of speech and the death penalty, two of the issues covered in the materials, but, of course, I think it far, far more important that they debate the consequences of entrenched presidents and vice presidents, of the presidential veto, and so on.

Just 15 more days ’til Constitution Day. I hope that everyone is brushing up on his/her favorite and, just as much to the point, unfavorite, parts of the Constitution.

And a response