The Constitution in Jeopardy

An Unprecedented Effort to Rewrite Our Fundamental Law and What We Can Do About It

By: Russ Feingold, Peter Prindiville

Narrated by: Jim Seybert, Russ Feingold, Peter Prindiville

A former U.S. senator joins a legal scholar to examine a hushed effort to radically change our Constitution, offering a warning and a way forward.

Over the last two decades, a fringe plan to call a convention under the Constitution's amendment mechanism—the nation's first ever—has inched through statehouses. Delegates, like those in Philadelphia two centuries ago, would exercise nearly unlimited authority to draft changes to our fundamental law, potentially altering anything from voting and free speech rights to regulatory and foreign policy powers. Such a watershed moment would present great danger, and for some, great power.

In this important book, Feingold and Prindiville distill extensive legal and historical research and examine the grave risks inherent in this effort. But they also consider the role of constitutional amendment in modern life. Though many focus solely on judicial and electoral avenues for change, such an approach is at odds with a cornerstone ideal of the Founding: that the People make constitutional law, directly. In an era defined by faction and rejection of long-held norms, The Constitution in Jeopardy examines the nature of constitutional change and asks urgent questions about what American democracy is, and should be.

©2022 Russ Feingold and Peter Prindiville (P)2022 PublicAffairs

Serious Book

This is an important book - A serious book with a serious focus on Article V of the US Constitution. It is a scholarly analysis of how Article V was developed, what was the original intent of the founders who created it, and how it has been misunderstood and underestimated to this day. MOST IMPORTANTLY - this book focuses on how Article V provides a backdoor for fringe elements to irreparably damage the US Constitution or destroy it completely. Because of this ominous well-documented threat, this book is a worthy read for anyone concerned about the internal threats to democracy.

The Constitution in Jeopardy is well written but certainly has a scholarly tone., and for that reason, I fear many people will not read this. That would be unfortunate.

A ponderous call to action

If Feingold and Prindiville had been in Paul Revere’s place, they would have told their countrymen: “I have something urgent to tell you, but first, let’s review our history with the Crown.” In this case, what should be a call to action is preceded by a graduate seminar in constitutional history. It is well reasoned, but suitable for only the most patient of readers.

Better understanding of Article 5

Thanks for this amazing description on how to implement convention and amendments to our amazing constitution.

Leftist Propaganda

I would give this book 0 Stars, but it wouldn't allow me to. It is a poor interpretation of our Constitution, full of the left's radical agenda.

Apt Title

This book argues the Constitution is under threat from the Constitution (Article V), so we need to rewrite that bad part of the Constitution to make it easier (for a national popular vote) to rewrite the rest of the Constitution. Yes "jeopardy" is a good word for that.

The authors make their case with skill and erudition, just like any good lawyer and politician, and you can even agree with certain insinuations (yes, routing all constitutional debate through court cases is underhanded and silly). But please realize this doesn't mean you have to accept their proposal. This is not an impartial treatise; it has an agenda that stems from a certain set of politics you don't have to agree with; and even if you do, don't ignore logical gaps, contradictions, and cherry-picked history just because you like the result. Do your own research. Or just read Article V. Ask obvious questions like "don't constitutional amendments have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states?" (The book has a pretty weak answer.) Ask yourself whether the authors likely hold consistent positions on, say, "stale" state actions when it comes to ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment, or "mal-apportionment" when it comes to Vermont, Delaware, and Rhode Island; do you think they decry the "nationalization of local politics" that took place in the 1960's and 70's? Or are these notions being invoked because it happens to support their position in this case.

It's funny to hear very smart people say "it's dangerous because it's never been done and there's no roadmap" when I suspect yesterday they were happy to throw such caution to the wind on a different topic. "An unprecedented effort to rewrite the fundamental law" indeed. And supposedly in the name of avoiding chaos? The authors here aren't arguing for any return to past principles, they're proposing something even more radical than their pretextual bogeyman. If it's a choice between that and a Convention of States, at least the latter is grounded in the Constitution.