How Democratic Is the American Constitution? et plus d'un million d'autres livres sont disponibles pour le Kindle d'Amazon. En savoir plus
EUR 11,13
  • Tous les prix incluent la TVA.
Il ne reste plus que 3 exemplaire(s) en stock (d'autres exemplaires sont en cours d'acheminement).
Expédié et vendu par Amazon.
Emballage cadeau disponible.
Quantité :1
How Democratic is the Ame... a été ajouté à votre Panier
Amazon rachète votre
article EUR 1,62 en chèque-cadeau.
Vous l'avez déjà ?
Repliez vers l'arrière Repliez vers l'avant
Ecoutez Lecture en cours... Interrompu   Vous écoutez un extrait de l'édition audio Audible
En savoir plus
Voir cette image

How Democratic is the American Constitution? 2e (Anglais) Broché – 23 janvier 2004

Voir les 3 formats et éditions Masquer les autres formats et éditions
Prix Amazon Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle
"Veuillez réessayer"
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 21,74 EUR 1,94
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 11,13
EUR 7,97 EUR 7,91

A court d'idées pour Noël ?

Offres spéciales et liens associés

Produits fréquemment achetés ensemble

How Democratic is the American Constitution? 2e + Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (NCE)
Prix pour les deux : EUR 20,49

Acheter les articles sélectionnés ensemble

Descriptions du produit

In this volume, an eminent political scientist questions the extent to which the American Constitution furthers democratic goals. Robert Dahl reveals the Constitution's potentially antidemocratic elements and explains why they are there, compares the American constitutional system to other democratic systems, and explores how Americans might alter their political system to achieve greater equality among citizens. In a new chapter for this second edition, he shows how increasing differences in state populations revealed by the Census of 2000 have further increased the veto power over constitutional amendments held by a tiny minority of Americans. He then explores the prospects for changing some important political practices that are not prescribed by the written Constitution, though most Americans may assume them to be so.

Vendez cet article - Prix de rachat jusqu'à EUR 1,62
Vendez How Democratic is the American Constitution? 2e contre un chèque-cadeau d'une valeur pouvant aller jusqu'à EUR 1,62, que vous pourrez ensuite utiliser sur tout le site Les valeurs de rachat peuvent varier (voir les critères d'éligibilité des produits). En savoir plus sur notre programme de reprise Amazon Rachète.

Détails sur le produit

En savoir plus sur l'auteur

Découvrez des livres, informez-vous sur les écrivains, lisez des blogs d'auteurs et bien plus encore.

Dans ce livre (En savoir plus)
Première phrase
MY AIM IN THIS BRIEF BOOK IS NOT TO PROPOSE changes in the American Constitution but to suggest changes in the way we think about our constitution. Lire la première page
En découvrir plus
Parcourir les pages échantillon
Couverture | Copyright | Table des matières | Extrait | Index | Quatrième de couverture
Rechercher dans ce livre:

Commentaires en ligne

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoiles

Commentaires client les plus utiles sur (beta) 46 commentaires
50 internautes sur 59 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
Thought-provoking and bold but still realistic 27 mai 2002
Par Alexander R. Small - Publié sur
Format: Relié
Some other reviewers have citicized this book with the non-sequitur that the US is "a republic, not a democracy." A republic is simply a representative democracy. The Founders feared a system in which a majority of the population could empower their representatives to do whatever the majority so pleases. To prevent such a nightmare they proposed limits on government power. Although they feared the unchecked will of the majority, they all agreed that the "will of the people" was a better source of power than any alternative. Anybody who recites from rote the "Republic, not a democracy" mantra to ward off any discussion of perfecting our form of government is forgetting that the preamble to the Constitution speaks of a "more perfect union", not "a perfect union."
That said, the question Dahl raises is why no other government in the world is quite like ours. He makes it clear that the Framers had good ideas, but suggests that other nations have improved on the excellent baseline model established by the Framers. That is a very reasonable proposition. Ironically, much of the innovation seen in other nations consists of solutions to problems that our Framers thought they had solved.
The Framers feared "faction", because blind partisanship is clearly a bad thing. Ironically, a failure to foresee and allow for the inevitable formation of parties has only exacerbated the effects of "faction." Dahl addresses the lack of proportional representation (PR), where each party gets seats in (at least one house of) the legislature in proportion to its share of the vote. The lack of PR leads to a two-party system. When you only have two parties, the inevitable result is rancor and polarization. Conversely, multi-party systems require coalitions, compromise, and negotiation. If the formation of parties in inevitable, I'd much prefer a system in which parties compromise and solve problems rather than demonize and obstruct.
Also, Dahl points out that the Founders feared a popularly elected President because (a) they believed no national figure would emerge and (b) they feared that if one did emerge he would be a strong-man. They also rejected a Parliamentary system because they wanted checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches. However, the electoral college rapidly evolved into a crude accounting scheme for national campaigns, and Dahl explores the historical background to this evolution. He also points out that we now have Presidents with "mandates." This suggests that maybe our Executive branch is TOO independent.
Finally, Dahl addresses the (sady, unchangeable) malapportionment of the Senate. He points out that revered advocates of limited government (e.g. Madison) opposed equal Senate representation for each state. In fact, Madison accused the small-state representatives of seeking power rather than liberty. Conservatives should be wary of any system that gives a small group huge power. Dahl argues persuasively that protection of minorities should look at ideological or political minorities, not minorities based on which state a person happens to live in. Ultimately, people should be free to organize politically with whomever they agree, and not be forced to organize their interests along artificial lines drawn by governments.
Overall, Dahl does an excellent job of pointing out the areas where our Constitution needs a fine-tuning, and he brilliantly demolishes the political ancestor-worship underlying opposition to his critique.
26 internautes sur 33 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
He missses the point 19 février 2010
Par Sanford Thier - Publié sur
Format: Relié
I think the book is a good one, as far as it goes. But, I think that the author, like virtually every author on the subject, is essentially arguing trivia that has little relevance to the real world. They intellectualize on a subject that our Government does not take seriously

The truth is that what the Constitution says or the form it takes simply has no consequence since the people who run our government simply ignore those provisions it does not like, enforces those provisions that enhance their power, and the Supreme Court can make its words mean anything they want by interpreting it to mean whatever they want it to mean. Let me give a few examples.

Example:1 Perhaps the most glaring example is the ruling that money equals speech. This ruling gives Constitutional protection thru the Free Speech Amendment for Corporations and the super rich to bribe any government official they want. Could anything be more obscene than to use the Bill of Rights to permit what would normally be a criminal action. I don't think so. When one adds that to the recent ruling that Corporations are persons under law, there is no hope for the common man to have any reasonable chance to have a seat at the tables when laws are being enacted that are critical to there own well being. Both of those interpretations are so absurd on the face of them that one simply cannot take any intellectual arguments about the Constitution seriously. And while our government scrupulously enforces those rulings, the smply ignore others.

Example:2 You may not know it but our government violates the Constitution on several subjects. The first is tha the Constitution states that our government is to give an accounting for all expenditures. So, why do they have a "Black Budget" that keeps secret tens billions of dollars that are spent on operations that the public doesn't know about. It is a clear violation.

Example;2 In passing Trade Treatise like NAFTA and the WTO, the Constitution requires a two thirds vote of the Senate. That, of course, didn't happen. They were instead put thru an unconstitutional process called "Fast Track" where members of Congress were not allowed to add amendments. This sham was created by denying that these treaties were treaties, by simply calling them "Agreements." One cannot make treaty not a treaty by simply calling it something else. You cannot turn a dog into a act by renaming it. This is an obvious violation of the Constitution.

EXAMPLE:3 the Constitution requires that only the Congress can declare war. That is another provision that is simply ignored. We have been in dozens of wars since WW II and we have never declared war on anyone.

Example:4 GWB created a precedent that allows the President to ignore any law he wants, simply by creating a Signing Statement. He did it dozens of times during his Administration. The way it works is that whenever Congress passes a law and it goes to the President for his signature, he doesn't veto it, he signs it and attaches a Signing Statement that notifies Congress that, even though he is signing the law, he does not intend to obey or enforce it.

Example:5 Finally, the President can simply ignore the Constitution by simply declaring and "Emergency." Most people don't know it, but we have operating in a state of emergency since WW II. That means that every President since Harry Truman, is free to ignore the Constitution whenever he wishes.

The truth is that the Constitution as, interpreted by the Supreme Court, has created a rigged system that has been manipulated to give all power to the moneyed interests and to ignore what the people want. Given the present situation, it seems to me that any intellectual arguments regarding any requirements of the Constitution is simply meaningless.

The book is an interesting read, but it is just an academic exercise. It has no real relevance in the real world.
26 internautes sur 33 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
A short course in comparative democracy 9 juillet 2002
Par Jason Hong - Publié sur
Format: Relié
I was enthralled by this book the instant I saw it, because it asked hard questions about American democracy that I've never heard from anyone else before. I would summarize this book as a short course in comparative democracies (sort of like comparative religions), discussing the similarities and differences between democracies that work.
The main question that Dahl asks is, "Why should we feel bound today by a document produced more than two centuries ago by a group of fifty-five mortal men, actually signed by only thirty-nine, a fair number of whom were slaveholders, and adopted in only thirteen states by the votes of fewer than two thousand men, all of whom are long since dead and mainly forgotten?"
Chapter 3 is the most interesting part of this book, where Dahl compares the American constitution to other democratic governments. "[A]mong the countries most comparable to the United States...not one has adopted our American constitutional system. It would be fair to say that without a single exception they have all rejected it. Why?" Dahl explores this question with respect to the American bicameral chambers (House and Senate), unequal representation (in the Senate), judicial review, the electoral system, two-party systems, and the presidental system. He discusses how the American system works versus other democracies, comparatively pointing out strengths and weaknesses.
Overall I found this a stimulating, well-written, and deep book that looks at fundamental questions about American democracy that few people seem to be asking. Unlike other authors, however, he doesn't do this in a pessimistic manner, criticizing the American system needlessly. It was more of "we've done pretty well all things considered, but we can do better, and we should strive to do better."
17 internautes sur 21 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
Brief but insightful 12 août 2002
Par mrliteral - Publié sur
Format: Relié
Dahl's book is actually more of an extended essay on the Constitution and the conflicts it has with modern concepts of democracy. In particular, Dahl focuses on such elements of the Constitution as senate representation and the electoral college, both of which provide representation on a basis other than that of population.
These "flaws" in the Constitution are nothing new. Dahl's more insightful work is where he compares the United States to other, similar democracies and sees how our Constitution compares with theirs.
This is a fast read, but that's as much a result of the brevity of the book as its writing. There are items Dahl could have developed more: in particular, the difficulty of amendment ratification fits perfectly into his book, but he really only mentions it as a stumbling block to Constitutional reform, not as another anti-democratic element of the document.
Despite its flaws, this book succeeds in its chief goal, which is to look at the Constitution in a realistic manner, without the glorification that so many people give it. It may provide more questions than answers, but these are good questions that need to be asked.
11 internautes sur 13 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
No example for the world 9 avril 2006
Par Gaius Sempronius Gracchus - Publié sur
Format: Broché
Dahl's fine book attacks the American Constitution and system of government for each of the following undemocratic features, most of them totally unique to the US among the world's advanced democracies, and all very rare.

? The Electoral College.

? A bicameral legislature.

? Grotesquely unequal representation in the Senate.

? Judicial review (veto) of acts of the federal legislature, duly signed into law by the President.

? Judicial legislation ("policy making") under cover of enforcement of the Constitution.

? Single member legislative districts with plurality voting (so-called, "first past the post"), contrasted unfavorably with proportional representation and runoff systems.

? The two party system.

? A President with important powers wholly independent of the legislature, contrasted unfavorably with the much more common system of ministerial government responsible to the legislature.

? A strong federal system imposing significant limits on the powers of the general government.

This is a short book in which, of course, RD does not say all he knows, or complain of every undemocratic characteristic of our system. For example, he does not complain of these, and so proposes no better alternative - however hopeless.

? Federal judges are appointed rather than elected.

? Federal judges have effective life tenure.

? There is no federal recall.

? There is no federal initiative.

? There is no federal referendum.

? Legislation is unduly influenced, and often even written, by lobbyists in service of moneyed interests (RD does allude to this).

? Tens of millions of America's mentally competent, non-criminal permanent residents lack the franchise.

? Tens of millions of America's people who have the franchise do not vote. (In the words of Sharona Fleming, "It only encourages them.")

? There is no "None of the above" option for voters.

? The means of campaigning are almost wholly within the gift of the rich (RD does allude to this disgraceful fact in one sentence).

? The means of political propaganda in general, from report and comment in the mass media to the productions of "think tanks," are almost wholly within the gift of the rich.

? Holders of high federal office - including judges, legislators, and the President - are nearly all lawyers and nearly all personally members of the wealthiest strata.

? The legislature has only the slightest real impact on foreign policy in general, and not much even on treaties. It has none on the extra-constitutional device of the "executive agreement."

? The requirement of a Congressional declaration of war is not observed and is without effect.

? There is no popular constraint on, or control over, government - and in reality Presidential - war-making power.

RD is justly pessimistic about the prospects for democratic change, but says not a word about why. But we know why, don't we? Many, if not all, of the undemocratic features of our system serve to protect the interests of the oligarchy who own and operate that machine.

And some are bizarre. Did you know the inequalities of representation enshrined in the Senate (half of America's people elect 18 Senators, while the other half elect 82) are reproduced in lesser degree to the benefit of the very same states in the Electoral College, giving them a wildly disproportionate impact on the selection of the President?

Over 700 proposals to reform or abolish the Electoral College have been passed in the House - and died in the Senate.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ? Dites-le-nous


Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?