I started to read this 'editorial/opinion' piece the other day, started to see red and had to stop. I am going to opine myself some on why the author of this attack on the Constitution is mostly wrong. I say mostly because I, unlike the author in question, can see two sides to things. I can find the flaws without calling the entire document "imbecilic".
His third paragraph, in which I assume he intends to show his 'impartiality' by asking the reader to ignore things actually shows his lack of objectivity. The "importation" of people was eliminated in 1808 in the constitution (Article I, Section 9) but Levinson ignores that attempt by the framers to do away with the practice. I never did get the 3/5ths thing, they were way off base with that one, but I chalk it up to the times. Natives were simply not considered human, not by scientists, not by politicians, and surely not by slave owners. Also in the third paragraph is the standard whine about the electoral college. The only reason conservatives don't complain about this odd system of picking a president is because the highly populous cities tend to hold those who take, those who depend on government to survive, and, obviously, vote democrat (yes, that is my bias showing, but prove me wrong...).
Then, the point where I gave up the first time, Levinson claims there are "four branches" in our federal government. There are three; no splitting of hairs will change that. There is the executive, legislative, and the judicial branches. The Legislative branch has two houses, those houses have the check and balance that Levinson wants in the executive branch, popular election. I am not going to go into the make-up, but his claim that the checks and balances actually hinder governance shows that he would prefer mob rule. His lament in paragraph four regarding elections is spot on. We as voters do not exercise our duty to impose term limits on poor performers. All we need to do is vote them out.
Levinson then hits us with his main point. We can't change the Constitution easily. That's the "...worst single part of the Constitution." Really. In his mind, we should be able to scrap stuff at our pleasure, based on what faction has power at any given moment.
I don't want my 'side' to have that power, and if you want your 'side' to have that power, you need to rethink your ideas about freedom and your obligation to your fellow man. He wants to have to President stack congress with like minded people, meaning that every 4 or 8 years we spend time undoing everything the previous administration did. He wants to eliminate Appointed judges. I want to hold judges to a higher standard, and if they rule based on ideology they are removed from the bench. And again, he pushes for 'direct democracy', allowing for citizens to vote on the viability of legislation such as "obamacare" (his euphemism). Considering Mr. Levinson is a critic of the second amendment one wonders what his thoughts would be on direct democracy regarding firearms?