Over at the New York Review of Books, Justice Stevens writes an interesting review of Sandy Levinson's new book Framed. Stevens writes a balanced review, but he disagrees with Sandy's recommendation in favor of a constitutional convention.
Interestingly, Stevens also disagrees with Sandy's attack on the compromises that produced the Constitution — compromises that allowed slavery to continue and permitted an equality of state power in the Senate. Stevens writes:
But Levinson’s evaluation of the great compromises essentially ignores
the fact that the failure to reach an agreement would have preserved the
Articles of Confederation, which required unanimous agreement to
implement any change that might impair the sovereignty of any state. . .
Although Levinson’s book contains a lucid and accurate description of
the costs incurred by the Framers’ “great compromises,” his discussion
omits an adequate consideration of the nature of the quid pro
quo—specifically, of what benefits were obtained in return. Those
benefits included the development of a flourishing national market where
free competition replaced multiple restraints of trade in thirteen
balkanized local markets. The contrast between the Framers’ prompt
creation of a flourishing common market and the years that went by
before such a market arrived in Europe should not be ignored.Nor
should we ignore the importance of the replacement of each state’s
absolute veto over certain federal actions with a bicameral legislature
that has the power to take action in the national interest, if
majorities in both houses agree.
I have made similar arguments myself about the compromise that led to the Constitution.
(Cross Posted at the Liberty Law Blog)
Posted at 7:57 AM