This book purports to be a remedy to correcting various flaws in the U.S. Constitution. It is not. Within the first two paragraphs there are immediate flags that this is more a rant you would hear on FOX “News” rather than a serious treatise on how we might improve some of the dysfunction of our political system. First, the author appears to be promoting (with some caveats) Mark Levin’s so-called Liberty Amendments using the second method of adopting amendments to the Constitution (although I was unable to find an explanation of the approach—it may be there but I couldn’t find it). Second, we are told that even though Levin’s approach has some value, it would not help us avoid the “tyranny of Obama’s centralized, socialized government power.” While there may be some truth to the argument that Democrats are in favor of a more centralized and nationalist approach to government, the charge that Obama is a socialist is just poppycock. Then to add insult to injury, the author provides a historical criticism of the Democratic party seemingly unaware that those criticisms would now embraced by the far right and many of those in the current Republican party. The author is rightly critical of our first past the post election system but a solution to that would be requiring all elections to require a majority vote and use of rank-choice voting. The book is difficult to read as it is mostly a series of lengthy pasted quotes from other sources that hurt the flow. One final note: the author is “surprised” that Gouverneur Morris who was instrumental in writing the constitution represented Pennsylvania at the convention. There really is no surprise there. He was defeated for reelection to the Continental Congress and moved to Philadelphia and became a resident in Pennsylvania. ( )

Unless you are very interested in the Libertarian argument of why the American political system should be radically changed this text is probably not for you. This is a 200+ plus essay, which at times slips into an anti-Democratic screed, when it refers to the 2020 election resulting in a “Marxist tyranny”after the Marxist Democrats “...gained unelected, illegitimate authority... “ (p. 72). and argues that this 250 year old political system is far from democratic and a system of social class competition and special interest control.

Vass argues that the current system was designed this way by Madison to ensure it was not a system of the people and that to be truly free and democratic we need to revert back to the likes of the Articles of Confederation where most political power was held at the state and local level. She argues we need to have a system that adheres to the basic Libertarian principles of small government, nearly unlimited freedom which will result in “more individualism and more citizen democracy”.

Vass never goes into any detail of how the nation would go about rewriting a new constitution or how such a system would function as a modern global world power. ( )

The author's thesis suggests that Madison and the Federalist contrived to exploit the average citizen by creating a form of government which protects the "rights" of the elitist class at the expense of the common citizen. Vass provides a good deal of evidence to support her thesis. The enumeration of this evidence is presented in a format somewhat reminiscent of newscast sound bites. Quotations, unfortunately, are not footnoted. In my opinion the book should be required reading by anyone interest in the philosophical underpinnings of Federalist thought and its contrast to Jeffersonian idealism. Though Vass does make a strong case against the modern democrat party her analysis spares neither party from criticism. In her world both parties represent rule by elites. One might well argue, based on the evidence of the choices made by voters in the last fifty years, whether the average citizen is capable of governing himself within a set of agreed upon rules, it might also be asked if the corruption of America's ideals by party politics of the 21st century has proven to be any better.

Working class and middle class American citizens know that something has gone terribly wrong in the American society. They know that the U. S. government is not working on their behalf. The question is what should be done?

Citizens have many unanswered questions about what is wrong, and not very clear ideas on how to fix the problems.

Citizens want to know:

Why and how did 5 million people enter our country illegally?

How did prized natural gas that had granted America's wishes of energy self-sufficiency, reduced pollution, and inexpensive electricity become almost overnight a pariah fuel whose extraction was a war against nature?

Which lawmakers, which laws, which votes of the people declared natural gas development and pipelines near criminal?

Since when did Americans create a government Ministry of Truth? When did we assume the FBI had the right to subvert the campaign of a candidate it disliked?

When did the nation abruptly decide that theft is not a crime, assault not a felony?

The root of the problems is that the centralized power of the Federal government became unthethered from the democratic consent of the governed.

The agencies of government, and the agents of government, have become an independent power on their own, and citizens have no political mechanism to regain democratic authority over the government.

We explain the history of how the centralized power of government originated in Madison’s flawed constitution.

Our solution for the problems is more democracy, not less. In other words we offer the strategy of Reclaiming the American Democratic Impulse.

With the massive issues Americans are dealing with is it realistic to claim that Madison was off base and an extension of democracy and re-writing a constitution is the answer?

The writer takes issue with Mark Levin who suggests that Article V of the Constitution is the solution; yet with the serious questions that are asked the solution offered by the author is to write a new Constitution. Whether either potential response is a possibility is a huge question, and problem. The Convention of States movement has failed to gain much ground and no serious thinker has proposed the writing of a new Constitution. It would be problematic to declare a new statement in the fractured political environment in the US today.

The volume is an edit away from a credible publication. The fonts are too large, there are unnecessary spaces, Sentence begins without caps, and the paragraphs do not flow smoothly from topic to topic. There are interesting and possibly true claims made in the books but they remain assertions without clarity and evidence.

I really wanted to enjoy this volume.