[.ca] The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing ... (ISBN 0156004941)

Real Reform:
Lazare has hit the nail on the head. Everyone is always complaining about the government, and yet, the system by which that very government is ruled is considered holy. How can this be? Real reform, and the only reform that can snatch our government away from the big money handlers that are running it now, is only possible from the ground up. That means that you cannot expect that a little tinkering will fix it. You have to realize that the entire system needs an overhaul. Lazare makes that point beutifully in his book. His grasp on American history and how the constitution has failed in the past is an eye opening experience. This is required reading for anyone interested in reclaiming thier democracy.

Raises very important questions:
Lazare makes a very original argument (so original that, clearly, it went right over the heads of several of the reviewers on this site). What Lazare is arguing is not-as some seem to think-ideological, per se. Rather, he is arguing structure. The rights that the Constitution was designed to protect is not the question; the question is whether the structure set up by the Constitution is effective in that protection. More importantly, does that protective structure ultimately tend to freeze us in eighteenth century thought, making the transition into the twenty-first century unduly painful? I highly recommend the book, not because I think Lazare has all the right answers but because he has asked some very important questions. That is something sorely lacking in U.S. politics. We tend to cling to our individual partisan political views with religious fervor.

Not quite there:
Definitely an interesting book, but "not quite there." Lazare's understanding of the strucutrual problems as they relate to the Constitution and slavery was very good, and, indeed, many on both the pro-slavery and abolitionist side argued against the Constitution as it stood. Where Lazare goes wrong is in the later years. His analysis of the drug war and the government policies that, in effect, subsidized suburbia, were both good, but not really having anything to do with the Constitution, either that I could judge or he could coherently argue. His overarching strucutural approach led him to see a systemic failure when others may see only a failure of policy. To impute the former from the latter simply begs the question. I'm also not sure why he thinks that government would become more progressive as a result of a more powerful House of Representatives. The notion that many different groups have varied, legitimate, but ultimately incommensurate views regarding what government can and should do presents a blindspot for Lazare. To take his example of the drug war, while it is true that medical marijuana resolutions do well, very few politicians, other than New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson have been elected on a pro-legalization platform. If anything, the prevailing rhetoric has been to get "tough on crime." Yet, Lazare thinks that more direct democracy can and will lead to greater progressivism. Maybe we're better with checks and balances. Also worth noting is that a lot of the strength of American Democracy is that, to use the hoary old cliche, it's a republic of laws, not men. An overarching legal framework has some value, then. Interestingly, some issues where the Constitution, at least as presently interpreted, may present issues he'd want to discuss, went missing. No real discussion of Campaign finance appeared, and he did not mention voter turnout, once. Does low voter turnout have anything to do with the Constituion? Well, not really, unless you want to use Lazare's ideology, in which the lack of good public transit does. Nevertheless, these strike me as the real issues facing American democracy, but they don't require constitutional overhaul to address. I also think he does himself a disservice by not really considering any prevailing theories of jurisprudence other than the bi-poles of William O. Douglas and Robert Bork. He also takes Bork's strict constructionism at face value, which is, while unfortunate, does serve his ultimate project. "The Frozen Republic" is intersting in parts, but really, he's stretching quite a bit to make his criticisms of present policy and discourses a systemic attack on the Constitution, qua constitution.

If you think it's broken, let's start figuring out why...:
This is an intelligent, reasonable exploration of the problems with the American governmental system. It is certainly not perfect; any effort so ambitious that it tries to cover the history of Constitutional governments for the last 600 years is bound to overreach. But Lazare does a nice job of producing a readable, rational hypothesis as to what's ailing the USA and of suggesting some solutions. The simple fact is that what the written Constitution says and what our government do are barely related. Lawyers take an entire class in law school studying the contradictions and hypocracies currently involved in Constitutional law. We lawyers learn how to use the current law to win cases and to argue our client's positions, but no one ever steps back and looks at the system as a whole and says, "hey, this needs to be fixed, it's not working anymore!" Lazare in this book tries to give some reasons and make some suggestions. Most people will find his suggested response to the problems -- eliminating the Constitution and its checks and balances -- too radical. But those of us who are paying attention to our world are glad that someone is learning from history, and is attempting to raise the level of political discourse in this nation above the mindless level of the current political debates. ("I'm a real reformer!" "No, he's a Washington insider -- I'm a real reformer! I was only in Washington when Dad was acting as President!" "Even though I've been Vice-President for the past eight years, I'm really an outsider who's all for reform...!") Real reform might have to jettison the entire system.

"Mob Rule" or "Democracy"?:
It was amusing to read the reviews which describe Lazare as a "socialist." Socialism, technically, means state ownership of the means of production, and/or the absence of private property. Needless to say, you will find neither in this book. It is also interesting to note how conservatives tend to use the pjorative term "mob rule" instead of the proper word, "democracy." God forbid that the rebellious rabble who comprise most of society actually rise up to demand a fair share of the American Pie. In any case, Lazare's arguments are forceful and beyond dispute. What have our vaunted limited government and hallowed checks and balances brought us? Crumbling cities, reactionary civic religion, an explosively growing gap between rich and poor, political apathy, and cultural stagnation. Because the Constitution is so difficult to change, we have opted to let the economy do everything. The results of this political abdication are obvious. Citizens would not even know where to begin, would they ever want to actually assert their collective will to make society more humane by acting through their polity. Investing an elected parliament with supreme federal power is actually to best way to make government more efficient, responsive to the people (I'm not part of a "mob," I'm part of We the People), and capable of ensuring our civil liberties. As we careen towards war in Mesopotamia, led by a shrubby dictator, our civil liberties are squashed at home without a peep from our nine supreme judicial protectors. This is "limited government" as the Founders intended? I'm with Lazare. Let's find a way to scrap our moldy old Constitution and put something in its place that actually embodies democracy. What are we afraid of?