we have to be critically involved in the discussion about the -- [inaudible] whether you get to religious credibility by struggling with the list realist -- [inaudible] social justice this is where we have to challenge the people. but the problem is something which is one of the most important disease that we have in the arab world. which now is the coming international. it's emotional politics. it's we are driven by motions. this is the way you can play with islam this is exactly what the pop lis are doing with us in the west. they are playing with our motions to be scared of the other and scared of the muslim and [inaudible] listen to jihad. you are scared emotional politics is populous. you can be populous and religious. and you can be populist and [inaudible] and we have to be equipped. we need the intent yule jihad. i mean it. i mean it. an intent intellectual jihad if we are serious about democrat and rights we have to understand that we have to discipline our minds, meaning knowledge, meaning understanding the complexity, and resisting emotional politics with our communed. it's really don't get it so quickly. motions are misleading in the way we portray the others and in the arab world, when it comes to woman, you know, if you go in some muslim majority countries you speak about women rights. you are westernized. i'm sorry i'm not saying this because i come from the west. i say it in the name of islam. because you are not respecting the muslim principles. you are loses [inaudible] because you are on the defensive. the less you are western. the more you think you are muslims. that's wrong. that's completely wrong. so i think that we need to come with this critical to be equipped with this and you know what you can do having voices coming from this being saying i'm practice i muslim. the principle i'm have candidating and be involved in the discussion. not let the people tell us what is the fry slawfm and the right islam. we have to advocate. and the last question about dealing with power. of course. the [inaudible] and some of the literalist. this is an old tradition an old tradition [inaudible] you have it in buddhism. that when you are dealing with power, if you are serious about the religion you never resist power, you never challenge the power because this power is given by god. you have religion [inaudible] saying if you are dealing, you better deal with the bad leader than to create the -- [inaudible] is going to be worse than better stability than revolution. and you have this. so we have interpretation. you have other interpretations saying you have a just leader, you there to resist and remove him. he has to be accountable. you cannot sen an injust leader and you have to resist. the means you have to -- this is important is not [inaudible] the ref luges revolution is not always as easy as this. you can celebrate revolution, but nonviolent ways and i think that we need today -- i broad wrote about this in many of the books. for example, even, you know, in my way of resisting what is happening in israeli-palestinian conflict, my point was with he what happened [inaudible] a global movement with nonviolent resistance to israel. nonviolence which is something that is powerful now. you have so many means of communication. sometimes you to deal with the means. to understand nonviolence it's important. these demonstration were important because they were nonviolent. we have weapons we're not going to use them. they want to kill us, kill us. and they went. and i think? is powerful and very, very worried about what is happening in syria with people giving them weapons and say go do it. and coming once again from monarchies that are giving weapons and supported by others say we don't give them weapons, we give them means. so you have to think about it. so this is where i think from an islamic perspective, revolution could be a means if there is no other way. but we need to think about how do we get rid of dictators through resistance. nonviolence resistance and education. this is once again we also have to tackle. it's which kind of education we give. you are talking about if the muslim brotherhood are there, which kind of education. it's never, never perfect. we have always to reassess. because islamists have a specific way of educating but, you know, traditional islam, i was very concerned with [inaudible] is doing as an islamic institution in the way they're teaching. for example, so in the way we are coming with the understanding it's important to connect ethics in policy which is a way of understanding that as citizens who don't only have rights. you have duties and one of the duties is to be the counter power to power. any last article on my website is power to power. which way you resist power and you have to be self-critical. with yourself and power. this kind of understanding from an islam perspective is something that we have to right, we have to promote. it's not against the islamic principles. it's very much something that we find in our tradition. i would say it's more me a contradiction in terms to i'm a practices muslim and i will keep quiet in front of a dictator. the only right way of being a man and a woman of faith is to be courageous. to speak the word. i think this is what -- and sometimes you have in our democracy to be courageous. i would like the americans to be a bit more courage use with their government. [applause] is there a non-fiction author or bock you'd like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv at c-span.org. or tweet us. compared u.s. constitution to the constitutions of the fifty states. in the hour fifteen minute programs he argues in many ways the state constitutions are better. [applause] [applause] thank you. first, i very much want to thank the people who came out and thank those people who might be watching this on c-span, at any time day or night. whenever it is you are watching. i appreciate that. i was told by both my wife and daughter after presenting some earlier remarks in [inaudible] why in new york that i should make it much shorter. which i will try to do. my hope is to talk for about fifteen no longer than twenty minutes, and then reserve a lot of time for the questions and comments and counter arguments that not only do i suspect that some of you have, but griffin some of the people in the room i know without you who have in fact i welcome. this is, we're told, the most important election in our lifetimes. and it may be that more people believe that this year than believed in 2008, 2004, or 2000 or other elections when that is regularly said. for this to be true, among other things, elections must be decisive with genuine consequences, for the making of public policy, particularly [inaudible] we could have separate conversation about the issue of presidential power with regard to foreign policy, military policy. but let me say that my primary interest in the book and my remarks this evening is much more domestic policy and the extent to which elections do or do not bring us close to resolving important issues of the domestic public policy. for the older members in the audience. there has been at least one lek that did fundamentally change america, and that is 1964. a mere 48 years ago. when all of the stars were aligned, not only to create a landslide victory from president lynn ton johnson. richard nixon got a landslide victory. but a land slime democratic majority and let us not forget a supreme court the united states that was still authorly understand the control of liberal democrats. four two brief shining years, or perhapses -- [inaudible] if you don't like the great society, for two years for better or for worse, the united states had a government in the way that we often speak of her majesty say having a government. that is a group of people who can in fact implement a party platform that can be judged at next election or series of elections. that is not generally the way the united states operates. courtesy of the constitution drafted in 1778 and what i want to insist relatively unamended thereafter with regard to the basic structures that we live under. the republican presidents since president johnson that is nixon, ford, reagean, george h. w. bush not for a single day had even a single house of the congress from their own political party. i'm sorry region had the senator. he never a full congress that was republican. bill clinton did have a full congress that was republican, but of course, bill clinton was a democrat and so you had fragmented government, george w. bush had a republican congress for a total of a bit more of his four of eight years. bush scarcely has list domestic legislative accomplish thes -- perhaps the 2012 elections will generate a june fied government that will be able to pass the preferred programmings. but it would certainly be [inaudible] most likely according to most sobers that the time, is the more or less maintenance of the status quo. in which barack obama will continue to occupy the oval office, while the republicans don't control row number the house of representatives, the senate at this time. i think being up for grabs. so we should be open to the possibility the current election will fit the shakespeare began of sound and furry signifying nothing or very little. with with regard to the domestic policy, and that is what i'm focusing on. perhaps not nothing. consider the conclusions of tom freedman's column on "the new york times" on april 22nd of the past year. one of many in which he expresses great concern i certainly share about the health of our political system. he began by asking what some readers no doubt found inflammation question, quote, does america need an arab spring? unquote. his answer is basically yes, quote, we can't be great with as long as we remain a [inaudible] rather than a democracy. our deformed political system with a congress that's become a form for legalized bribery, is now truly holding us back, unquote. a have a to be sei allows what some could call special interest to prevent the passage of legislation both supported by majorities of elect rate, and in fact perhaps conducive to some coherent notion of the national interest. i began my prior book, on economic democratic constitution where the constitution goes wrong, and how we the people can correct it. refusing to sign a psychological at the national constitution center in phil fill that invites visitors to emulate the delegates who did sign the constitution instead of the three brave hold outs who did not. and i might interpret late that when we visited the national constitution center, just the past may, she took a picture of me with the three pulled outs. george, albert, and raldolf. many of the reasons for my own holding out in 2003 at the opening of the national constitution center, as suggested by the book's title our democratic constitution related to the fact that the united states constitution is in many ways remarkably undemocratic. not only when compared to almost any constitution written elsewhere around the world since the end of world war ii, but also with compared to the fifty other state other constitutions in america. the title -- the full title of my book framed the subtitle, america's 51 constitutions and the [inaudible] and one of the things that has now become a hobby of mine and in fact will be the brunt of a course i'll teaching in the fall at the harvard law school is that every student particularly at our so called elite law schools, which would lead their students and graduates to believe there is only one constitution in the entire united states. to realize that is false. each state has itself own institutions and one discovers contrary to the bad repute that state constitutions often have. particularly in elite law schools. that they're really often remarkably interesting. and without exception more domestic than the united states constitution. there is a controversy now among political science about the degree to which the united states constitution is continuing to serve as a model for countries around the world. that are drafting new constitutions. what i find much more telling is that the united states constitution to remarkable and relatively unexamined degree did not serve as a model for the state constitutions that were drafted in the country beginning around the turn of the 19th century. if you look at various new york constitutions, and other constitutions, you find very dramatic differences. the new york constitution makes it 46, for example, for better or worse when talking about constitution design what always has to say for better or worse. it is the new york constitution that lead the way to an elected judiciary. something, of course that we in texas are intimately familiar with. but returning to the united states constitution, for the moamght, my argument is that it is 1887 constitution established a set of institutions that worked systemly not only to minimize the practical importance of elections, by making it difficult to pass any national legislation, precisely because of constructing a -- [inaudible] system of checks ebb plans that is a fact institute. we have the equivalent of a tricamera legislature in the united states, and this is true incidentally of 49 of the 50 states. i'm a great admirer of nebraska, which has shown that it's capable to achieve a decent political order with only legislative house. so called camera. but what we have national level is a tricamera legislature, con consistent s is of a homed and indefensely a portion of the senate that gives the voter of vermont roughly 40 times the power of voters in texas. and single president at the stroke of a pen can render irrelevant the joint decisions made by both house and senate perhaps with significant majorities in each. but not the magic and relatively uncontainable number of two-thirds that is required to override a president obviously issue have aet to. we remember this year that even getting through a tricamera legislature might not be enough because we currently -- believe self-authorized to strike down legislation some people would say to serve as a forth legislative chamber. the united states under both democratic and republican presidents, declares and support for what i call democracy project around the world. we should reflect far more than we do on the fact that the united states at least so far is the national government is concerned scarcely meets the 21st century criteria of democratic rule. this is why freed month could seriously suggest that the united states might be the own -- [inaudible] of democracy. that being said, i have concluded that most americans don't care about democracy. either at home or abroad. a number of people caiment up to me after the earlier book, again, our undemocratic constitution, and reminded me some gently some not so, that didn't i realize professor leveson, that we weren't intended to be a democracy we are a republican and we should keep it that way. the people who said precisely that, i'm sure did not know that they were repeating the slogan of the john buncher society. i can testify for personal experience that it is very heavily wired in to the american political mind there is something dangerous about democracy which is instantly identified with tyranny of the majority. and we should embrace zen rate institutions that make it next to impossible for majorities to govern unless all of the stars are aligned in just the right way as they were between 1964, and 1966. so the fact that i'm critical of the united states constitution for being insufficiently democratic may mean only that i am too academic. and my approach in the constitution, and insufficiently appreciative of the benefits. after all barack obama is a candidate in 2008, set of the constitution that quote, it's worked pretty well for over 200 years, unquote. among other things, the come placen't assurance by our first african-american president noless, requires over looking a brutal civil war that lasted four years and killed a ton of people. a war that i'm sure many of you experienced as having occurred between semesters where the first semester of the american history course that you might have taken concluded in 1860, and then it picked up again perhaps in 1868 or 1877. this is actually the way american constitutional law is taught. that the 14 amendment appears by magic in constitutional law of course is with literally almost no time spent on how we got either the 13th or the 14th amendment which is much closer to what we suggest to chairman's motion that our constitutional power grows up a barrel of gun than be understood simply in the model that the 1787 constitution that suggests that any amendments would come through a nice calm and peaceful article v process where we deliberate on what would makes better and duothirds of congress says, yes, that's right and three quarters of the state legislature say we're with the program too. let's not describe how we got the so called row construction amendments. i would like to think that then candidates obama would simply engaging in opportunistic rhetoric given that almost literally the last thing he could afford to be perceived as either than or today was as a critic of the sacred foundational text. indeed, his opponent governor romney assuming he takes more seriously does infact treat the constitution as a say rid foundational text. that is the book of mormon says. so forget the fact that the constitution is woefully undemocratic. perhaps that truly doesn't matter. the new book begins and certainly free month's and my obsessional focus is on the degree to which people are fundamentally dissatisfied or worse, with 0 current operations of the american system of government. how many of you, for example, agree with the 61% of polled americans at beginning of the month that the country is going the wrong direction? and that the political system is bruting an inned a dwoit engage in necessary turns of course. whatever your own major concerns might be. were you a drought stricken farmer you would i suspect be furious beyond belief at the irresponsibility of the present congress busy taking an election campaigning recess instead of attending to those national priorities. some of course tie the drought to cause global warming. one sees a totally nonresponsive congress. if one is more on the administrator right, and i would insist that my book independently of my own political views is not written as a left-wing tract because it seems very, very clear that the tea party, for example, is also justifiably outraged at the inability of the american point system to respond to a number of its issues that legitimately regards as important including a careening national debt, and the inability of congress seem belie genuinely to get any control of ever increasing medical expenses that could in fact bankrupt the national economy if something isn't done. i'm glad obamacare passed, i'm glad the supreme court upheld it. but i think that almost nobody believes that it provides a genuine solution to the very, very genuine problem of inefficiency in the florida care system with regard to costs. remarkably few people these days look at the con contemporary united states government with the basic structures with any genuine -- reveal that only 17% of americans approve of congress. 76.5 disapprove. this actual represents a slight uptick of approval given that in september of 2011, "the new york times" published an article approval of congress matches record low of 12%. just as the gallup poll reported the same month that, quote, americans express historic negativity toward u.s. government, unquote, noting that 81 percent of the polled were quote, dissatisfied, unquote the way the country is being governed. perhaps most shocking was an august 2011 finding t