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.