Chemerinsky is a partisan hack that confuses political disagreement as destroying democracy. This book is akin to a childish rant because court rulings don’t always go Chemerinsky’s way.

For his next book, I suggest that Prof. Chemerinsky give a detailed proposal for a new US Constitution and explain why each section improves on what is offered by the current amended document from 1787. I agree with him that Amendment X gives a basis for trying to get a national referendum on the new basis for US democracy. Among the obvious issues he fails to address in the reviewed book is whether or not the two party system is a prime cause of contemporary US malaise and would problems be solved by going to a national legislature based on proportional representation where the public votes for a party rather than a local politician. To fix presidential elections, would he advocate a national non party based primary followed by a runoff of the top two candidates? Another important issue, not addressed in this book, is unicameral versus bicameral legislatures. I agree with Jefferson, who is said after arriving home after observing the French going for the unicameral model, to have asked Washington what was the point of having a Senate. He only offers term limits as a sort of check and balance to the Supreme Court. What about clearly defined constitutional limits to its power? The current SCOTUS seems to think it can can make any law and amend the Constitution by a 5 to 4 vote based on cockamamie reasoning. A basic problem in "No Democracy Lasts Forever" is that it doesn't look to the rest of humanity for guidance. When asked in 2012 about a new constitution for Egypt Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "You should certainly be aided by all the constitution writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012". Proportional representation, unicameral legislatures and well defined court powers have become quite common worldwide. As far as secession, a big topic in the final chapter of the book, maybe having real democracy instead of minority rule, would make everybody think they count and lessen the chance it will happen.

all I needed do was to read the 1 star reviews...from the usual right wing echo chambers. Now I know I must read it!!

Get this -- it was recommended to me by my dearest very conservative friend, so I came to it partly biased and partly in shock! This book is an "easy" read, accessible to anyone with at least a 7th-grade education. It's only 180 pages, 11 Chapters -- perfect for those of us with limited attention spans (or a quick listen if you prefer) BUT wow is it educational and illuminating especially if you're like me and didn't know as much about the US Constitution as I should. What it presents is a blueprint for 1) how our society can get better and 2) what the impediments are that keep us from achieving that goal. It takes the reader on a journey from the late 1700s to today, with concise explanations about how undemocratic we've been from Day One. It shows how truly inventive people can be when they put their minds to discriminating against "others" or when they're solely out for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Only a fool (or someone who didn't read it or who honestly doesn't give a crap about ANYTHING) would be critical with what Chemerinksy has written. He seems like a down-home kind of dude who merely tells it like it is -- "Just the facts, Ma'am". He ain't no big shot condescending Lib, that's for sure. I'm not embarrassed to admit how incredibly ignorant I was about the circumstances behind the formation of the US system of government, who the players were at the time, how and why that system has been exploited/gamed over the decades, and how the lens I've used over the past 33 years to guide my political decision making has been clouded by misinformation spewed by the very people I thought had my best interests at heart. This book helped bring me up to speed -- dispelling the romantic notion I'd had about the Constitution, how I should have regarded it all along as a "Compromise" instead, why it's truly a straitjacket that has brought the US government to a standstill, how it breeds distrust and cynicism, and why it needs to be amended. It opened my eyes and EXPLAINED so many things! I feel as though, finally, I completely understand why this country is in the shape it's in, and why no one person can solve the problems we face. As Chemerinsky points out, it's the rules of the game that have to change. When you take a moment to see it from his eyes, a weight gets lifted from your shoulders. It got me asking why doesn't Fox or CNN focus on this stuff -- it's where the real action lies. I challenge anyone with an honest backbone, curious mind, holding out a concept of fairness, to come up with a legit argument against Chemerinsky's historical presentations and the solutions he describes. Do what I did, and fact check him. I tried but couldn't find any fake news here but I'm open to be corrected on that. This is one of those books that should be essential reading for every junior/middle/high schooler, college frosh, and frankly every American. It's the kinda book that creates a common ground. The only potential danger of it is that in the hands of US adversaries, it's a playbook to undermine us.

The author notes that trusts in our instutions has collapsed since the 60s but offers no real concrete proof that his ideology will restore that. Instead, trust has collapsed so "take us at our word" that we will restore it if you give us political power. Let's disregard the fact that the author is an exceptionally liberal person and the 1960s mark the ascent of LBJs "Great society." Much of what the author has personally supported over his lifetime is directly responsible for the collapse in social, political, legal, and economic norms in this country. No, I submit that if we do need a constitutional reform it should be to curtail the power of the Democrat machine-cities who inflate there representation through illegal immigration and indoctrination. We should permanently subject them to un-incorporated city-zones with a marginal capacity for self-governance but nothing else. If we are going to throw out the existing constituonal order, we might as well do it for something more beneficial to the nation...

Although I do not agree with all of the author’s points, he does a very good job in explaining the constitution. He is repetitive in many of his points. I enjoyed the text about the constitution itself rather than his recommended changes.

I was intrigued by the book's premise and the book did not disappoint. It provided an easy to follow historical approach to viewing our Constitution's intentions and flaws and how it has contributed to our current national crisis of faith in government. I highly recommend.