In Sanford Levinson’s book, Our Undemocratic Constitution, he formulates an argument on why certain elements of the US Constitution are undemocratic. Ultimately, Levinson wants to inform his readers on the 200-year-old constitution and that its structural issues need to be addressed in terms of being democratic. Three important constitutional provisions—bicameralism, the Electoral College, and the Good Behavior Clause—are argued throughout his book in detail to show certain democratic flaws. Levinson failed to bring forth solutions to these so-called undemocratic elements; however, his overall argument does not become infringed. In a later book, Levinson goes on to talk about these solutions, making it irrelevant in this particular book. Though …show more content…
As this system being a crucial part of our federal government, Levinson invests a portion of his book to address multiple issues with bicameralism and its connection to the United States as a democracy. In addition, it raises several questions that need to be focused on in concern with Americans views. Levinson brings forth bicameralism as being a flaw in the US Constitution. He elaborates that our system needs to fit in a democracy that does not allow the majority to overpower the minority. With this particular view being preeminent to the framer’s writing, they chose two chambers two work together as equals. It is important to mention that the two chambers do have different roles and different representation. Early on in his section on bicameralism, he emphasizes that passing legislation tends to be more difficult in Congress—the House of Representatives and the Senate (35). This is a major issue for our nation to move forward if it continues to be a Legislation at deadlock. Levinson’s argument may be obvious because the framers’ wanted to emphasis checks and balances, which in hindsight leads to this development of conflict between the two parties in each chamber. Passing certain laws can be good, but it can also be dangerous. This conflict that comes about is not so much harmful, but is it democratic in