Editorial Review

This is the ONLY edition authorized and commissioned by the W. Cleon Skousen Family. Also, no other edition except this one includes the revisions made by the author during the 25 years after the original printing.

NEW in 2009! THE 5000 YEAR LEAP 30 Year Anniversary Edition with Glenn Beck s Foreword! NOW also includes Common Sense by Thomas Paine No other edition offers the revisions and updates of this remarkable book detailing how the Founding Fathers used 28 principles to create a 5000 year leap in freedom, prosperity, and progress; all based upon morality, faith, and ethics.

THIS BONUS EDITION INCLUDES: Common Sense by Thomas Paine, 101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates, The US Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and Two landmark addresses by author Dr. W. Cleon Skousen never before offered in print.

Revised, 30 Year Anniversary Edition. During the last 26 years of Dr. Skousen's life he continued his extensive study of the constitution and founding values. He kept his original copy of The Five Thousand Year Leap with him and would write notes in the margins and on envelops and note cards of the refinements and updates he wished to add to the book. This new 30 Year Anniversary Edition includes those refinements and updates. Our gratitude goes out to the Skousen family for supplying us with this information to enable us to bring you this new edition.

The 5000 Year Leap will take you by the hand as you discover the ideals of the Founding Fathers and their 28 principles for success. The values explored in detail by Dr. Skousen range from the Founder's prerequisite that the Constitution was designed for a moral people, to a government empowered by the people with checks and balances, along with an understanding of the critical nature of fiscal responsibility and family values. This book sums up the secrets to what James Madison called a miracle. ... Read more

Reviews

The 5,000 Year Leap, April 25, 2009
This book is the quintessential book on understanding the brilliance of our founding fathers. It also shows how the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence are timeless documents. It should be recommended reading in all high school social studies classes. I gained an understanding and appreciation of our freedom given to us via these documents and has woken me up to how our current government is seeking to take power and gradually take away the freedoms granted to the people of the United States. The main reason behind the US Constitution was to limit the oppressive power of government. There are so many things that today's federal government is doing that our forefathers fought to make sure wouldn't happen. I think everyone should read this book to get an idea of just how far over reaching the current federal government is. The amazing thing is that this book was originally written I believe 30 years ago and it's so appropriate to what's happening in the political landscape today. It's almost like Skousen saw our current situation coming.

Should be used in every government and history classroom., October 1, 2009
I hesitated to write this review as I stopped reviewing books on government and politics a couple years ago because of the nasty comments people would make about my conservative and Christian views. A dear friend gave this book to me as a gift and I find it outstanding. Were I still teaching government and history I would be using it in the classroom. Yes, I have checked facts given in this book and have found them 100% correct. I will be buying extra copies to give to friends who are still teaching. I also will not read any comments on my review of this book. I am pleased that the great majority of reviewers seem to feel as I do.

5000 Year Leap, April 15, 2009
Love him or hate him, I saw an interview with Richard Nixon not too long before he passed away. He said his greatest fear is that we are not telling our nation's story over and over, and our children are not being taught in our public schools. I am a retired educator who majored in history and taught American History for several years. I am still an avid student of our history. I can tell you the stuff our kids are being fed is nothing but a bunch of touchy-touchy, feel good, politically correct pile of garbage. For example little emphasis on our Founding Fathers is given in many states and universities. Why? THEY OWNED SLAVES. Yes, they did, but they put together the best system of government the world has ever seen. Revisionist historians want to go back to Jamestown and blame this country for every conceivable ill. Many of these historians such as Michael Bellesiles of Emory University wrote a complete book of lies about the Second Amendment, The Arming of America. He got a Pulitzer for the book. It was discovered that his research was so specious that the prize was withdrawn and he was fired. He was so anti Second Amendment that he was willing to put his career on the line and lie about it. I have an idea this is but the tip of the iceberg. Our students are being fed lies, yes lies, about our history. This is a book that would be required reading in my American History classroom. If there are those who get all chilled by the mention of the Christian faith, then don't read it if it offends you. I taught a month long unit on the US Constitution each year to my 8th graders. They practically had to memorize it. They were tested over and over again and were required to do additional research. That was several years ago, and my former students STILL REMEMBER those precepts. Again, this book needs to be read by every American citizen, liberal or conservative, elephant or donkey. We need a new American Revolution, a patriotic one. Too many people in our country (like leeches) draw from the blessings and benefits of living in this country and wouldn't raise a finger to support or defend her. I honestly believe if we were to face a crisis such as World War II, we would hear a giant sucking sound, the rush of our "citizens" running to Canada and Mexico.

Back to Basics, January 25, 2010
Being British, and involved in politics over here, I was very keen to read this book, to see the ingredients that the founding fathers mixed together to create such an incredible country.

As I have read the book, I have been in awe at the incredible restraint and foresight that these men had. I am sure they were truly inspired, as where the others who contributed - as the Constitution was by no means the work of one man.

I am saddened and worried by the drift from the founding ideal, to policies and politics that have been proven time and time again not to work.

As a friend of mine said, the problem you get with Democracy, is when people realise they can vote themselves money!

It is my hope that the people of America have a "second Revolution", a return to the basics, and the simplicity of the Constitution - because truly it is only this way that America can get itself out of the crippling debt and over regulation it is finding itself in.

This really should be compulsory reading in schools, and colleges - but of course the liberal left would have a heart attack if that was to happen, as the book mentions God!

If you can do it once, you can do it again! So go for it, and get back to the basics that made America Great!

THIS IS THE ONE WITH GLENN'S FOREWORD, March 18, 2009
This is the edition that has Glenn's foreword. This version is the book Glenn gave to all of his studio audience and held up during his "WE SURROUND THEM" event on Friday March 13th. Folks should feel free to buy either edition, but keep in mind if you want Glenn's foreword and the updates for 2009 then you will probably want this one. Its ironic that even though Glenn featured this edition, the old NCCS edition is the one that has shot to #1 on the Amazon best-seller list. Congratulations to NCCS we wish them the very best! Just make sure as a buyer you know which one you are ordering becuase there are two distinct editions (the 30th Anniversay updated edition and the 25-yr-old original) I say get which ever one suits your fancy.

Fantastic smart easy read history, April 28, 2009
Great, accurate, smart, factual, interesting, easy to read and understand history. One of the best I have ever read. I would recommend to any U.S. citizen and anyone wanting to understand how our Government was formed based on freedom, equality, justice and humanity.

Like Updated Version Better, March 24, 2009
I own both the original book and CD, and the updated 30th Anniversary edition available only from PowerThink. I like the additional commentary by Glenn Beck and it's nice to have the Declaration and the Constitution in one place. The artwork on the anniversary edition cover is excellent. I believe that The 5,000 Year Leap should be required reading in America's schools and colleges. Like all of the products I've purchased from PowerThink, this anniverary edition packs more bang for the buck than what you find with other publishers.

a must read for every American, May 2, 2010
This book is clearly written, very practical and informative, and I am now reading it with my 7th grade grandson. Reading this book will provide a clear understanding not only of the founding and the founders of our great nation, but also how unique America is in the entire history of the world. I have always been proud to be an American, but this book educated me, filled in gaps in my knowledge of history that I didn't know were even missing, and reaffirmed my conviction that I must be the best American that I can be; I must be a better patriot today than I was yesterday. It is imperative that my firm convictions be based in truth-- and that I have the courage to stand on those convictions. I must be an educated and faithful voter.... and then stay in touch with those who represent me in my government. I agree with Thomas Jefferson: When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Amen and amen.

Finally know what it is to be an American, October 7, 2009
I did not learn this in Social Studies. Maybe it should be required reading.
Just getting into the book I am in love with it already. Reading a few pages, and glancing through the book, I find it an easy read. As Americans, we need to understand the Why--why does it work?
If you know the why, then we can not be easily led astray.

It belongs next to The American Patriots Almanac by William Bennett, Rediscovering God in America by Newt Gingrich, Common Sense by Glenn Beck
(I already put Arguing With Idiots on that shelf, there is a space for Becks "An Inconvenient Book" as well)

This book has: the Declaration of Independence, the U. S. Constitution, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and 101 Constitutional Questions to Ask Candidates.
It states the task set before the Founders, and the 28 principles after that.

Yes, it is WORTH the extra pennies to have all the content. It is a book to be celebrated.

Best read in a long time., April 2, 2010
I remember when schools used to teach civics and US government and at least some history. This book reacquainted me with the founding principles of this country and of the incredible men who dreamed of an entirely new system of government. It also unfortunately pointed out how far we have strayed from those principles. I recommend this book for everyone regardless of political party or ideology. It will make you stop and think. ... Read more

Editorial Review

A tiny, ebullient Jew who started as America's leading liberal and ended as its most famous judicial conservative.A Klansman who became an absolutist advocate of free speech and civil rights.A backcountry lawyer who started off trying cases about cows and went on to conduct the most important international trial ever.A self-invented, tall-tale Westerner who narrowly missed the presidency but expanded individual freedom beyond what anyone before had dreamed.

Four more different men could hardly be imagined.Yet they had certain things in common.Each was a self-made man who came from humble beginnings on the edge of poverty.Each had driving ambition and a will to succeed.Each was, in his own way, a genius.

They began as close allies and friends of FDR, but the quest to shape a new Constitution led them to competition and sometimes outright warfare. SCORPIONStells the story of these four great justices: their relationship with Roosevelt, with each other, and with the turbulent world of the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War.It also serves as a history of the modern Constitution itself.

... Read more

Reviews

Court Battles
The author has cherry-picked the four most interesting Supreme Court justices from the eight men that President Rossevelt appointed to the high bench. This legal account really follows the tenure of Robert Jackson (1941-1954) as he interacts with fellow justices Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurther, and Wiliam Douglas. It is an arbitrary time period chosen by the author, but it is climaxed by the historic Brown vs. Board of Education decision and Justice Jackson's death. The narrative alternates between the constitutional theories of each of the justice's and between their brilliant but competitive minds. The book combines dueling legal arguments, New Deal politics and clashing personalities into an absorbing narrative of the World War Two era and beyond.

I doubt even the author realizes how good this book is - Finest book ever written about the Supreme Court !!!!


By way of disclosure I am a private scholar who has studied the interplay of power among different institutions and entities, whether it is government, corporations, or other power groups. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Historical Society for many of the last 30 years and I have been fortunate to have developed personal relationships with many associate justices and two Chief Justices. Having said that, I am simply amazed at the wonderfully expertly written, fascinating, and breathtaking book that Feldman has written.


His anecdotes and historical references are both brilliant and factual. He has truly captured the essence of the Supreme Court and its stormy relationship with FDR during a critical period of American history. This was during the 1930's and for the next thirty years. This is a book about 5 egos, four of them justices, and one President, and the interplay between them during 3 decades. The first part of the book is devoted to a fast sweeping biography of 4 associate justices all of whom were appointed by the patrician Franklin Roosevelt.


The Players in this book:


Felix Frankfurter

Brilliant beyond anyone's understanding, he was the product of a poor family living in the slums of New York. He went to the City College of New York, and although it is not mentioned in the book, City College at that time was considered better than Harvard because the Ivy League was limiting Jewish enrollment intentionally. This allowed City College at one point to have more Nobel Prize winners than Harvard.

After graduation, Frankfurter put together some money and went on to Harvard Law where he excelled. Ultimately he developed mentors like Henry Stimson, an absolutely legendary power broker in Washington who served several Presidents including FDR as Secretary of War. Frankfurter is without question one of the intellectually most gifted people to ever serve on the Court.


Robert Jackson

Jackson was born dirt poor, so poor in fact, he could not afford an undergraduate education, and so he apprenticed to be a lawyer with a Jamestown New York law office. While working, he decided to pursue a year of formal education at the Albany New York Law School. He was folksy, clever, with a fabulous speaking delivery, exercised common sense and made a fortune before risking it all on a bank during FDR's first days in office.


Hugo Black

Black did a 2 year program at the University Of Alabama School Of Law. He was self-guided, extremely well read and understood that in the 1920's, the power was with the Ku Klux Klan, and so he joined in 1923. It helped him with his rise to power in Alabama and then he abruptly left the organization. It haunted him the rest of his life. He joined the Supreme Court in 1937, and became one of the most outspoken proponents of freedom, and free speech during the century.


William O. Douglas

Raised on the West Coast in Washington, he became a Yale Law School professor in his 20's. Accepted at Harvard Law, he went to Columbia Law instead. This man also knew how to be mentored. He came under the guidance of Robert Maynard Hutchins who graduated Yale Law in 1925 and immediately became a professor of law. Two years later Hutchins becomes dean of the school at 28 years of age. He then brings Douglas to Yale to be right in the center of things. Douglas would then be mentored by Joe Kennedy, JFK's father. Joe Kennedy would introduce Douglas to FDR, and thus a rocket ship ascent began for the future associate justice.


You need to understand who these players were to determine if you want to read this book. What the author clearly demonstrates is how these four individuals who on and off for thirty years would be friends and enemies would go on to reshape our modern interpretation of the Constitution, and the laws under which we live. Every major law and judicial event of the 20th century came through their hands for interpretation and lawfulness.


Their joint influence is not exceeded by anyone including Presidents. Just look at a short list of some of the seminal events they were involved in:


* The concept of Judicial Restraint

* Clear and Present Danger Case

* Dennis v. United States - The right or non-right to advocate the overthrow of the United States

* Judgment at Nuremburg - The right of the world to judge the implementers of Hitler's final solution. Associate Justice Robert Jackson presided.

* Brown v. Board of Education - Outlawing the separate but equal doctrine created by the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. Justice Jackson went through four different drafts of this new interpretation. While very ill at the time, Justice Jackson found it excruciatingly difficult to render a unanimous opinion. He went directly to the Court from a hospital bed to render support for the earthshaking decision the Court published.

* The Rosenberg Case



What you will gain from reading this book:


You will understand our country, and more importantly the true genius of the founding fathers in creating an independent Supreme Court. You will be awed by the intellectual genius of some of America's greatest minds dedicated to an interpretation of our laws. Even when you disagree with them, you will be struck by the quality of their thinking.


This is not about liberal versus conservative, which is what we see today. I have known many of the great liberals as well as the conservatives on the Court, and I am impressed by both types. My own personal demand on sitting justices is that they are people of absolute integrity, and extraordinary intellects, and for the most part we have been blessed by both from the right and the left.


Author Noah Feldman has given us a rare glimpse into some of the most interesting personalities of the 20th century. You will also get to know Tommy the Cork Corcoran, one of the most powerful legal players in the 20th century. You will meet Abe Fortas, perhaps the most influential associate justice of the 20 century. This is a man who sat in Lyndon Johnson's cabinet meetings, not at the table, but back several feet by the window. He would take it all in, and then when alone with the President dissect the whole meeting, and tell President Johnson what to do. I doubt LBJ could have remained in office through 1968 without the solid advice rendered by Abe Fortas.


In summary, if you have any interest in the Supreme Court at all, or how government works, this book should be at the top of your list. I simply could not put it down, and thank you for reading this review.


Richard C. Stoyeck

Conflict on the FDR Supreme Court
There are a number of books and articles that discuss conflict between Supreme Court Justices, including the four Justices at the center of this fine study: Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965); Robert Jackson (1892-1954); Hugo Black (1886-1971); and William O. Douglas (1898-1975). Collectively, these Justices served between 1939 and 1975. However this book is unique in several ways that advance our understanding of the Court during this period. At about 500 pages, the author is able to paint a more complete picture of the Justices and their Court interaction than shorter studies. Each Justice is introduced, in terms both of his pre-Court career and his relationship with FDR. So by the time the author discusses their Court interaction, the reader has a particularly good feel for each Justice as an individual. Unlike most other studies, the author devotes probably most attention to Robert Jackson, an almost forgotten figure today who is soon to be the subject of a major biography by Professor John Q. Barrett. This focus on Jackson, former Attorney General, whom Justice Brandeis considered the finest Solicitor General he had seen, who later served as lead American prosecutor at Nuremberg, and who wrote some of the finest opinions in the Court's history, enhances the study enormously.

The book also sheds light on the other three Justices as well. The much criticized Frankfurter, who went from being the leading Court liberal to outright conservative, is assessed in ways that allow the reader to understand why the shift to an activist Court left Frankfurter behind, rather than a shift in his own judicial restrainist philosophy. A perceptive discussion of Black and the development of his incorporation and textual philosophy of interpretation helps fill out an understanding of this key Justice. Equally important as his revival of Jackson is the author's rehabilitative portrait of Douglas, driven by political ambitions until 1948, when he emerges as a "great justice" and theoretician of new constitutional rights (such as privacy) and opponent of the Vietnam war. As a corrective to the "Wild Bill" approach to Douglas, the author's analysis is most welcome. We are reminded of why Douglas was so vital a Justice during his tenure in dealing with issues such as the flag salute cases, Japanese relocation, the HCUA, and the Rosenbergs.

On top of all this, the book is a solid analysis of some of the leading cases in our constitutional history during this period. The discussions of "Brown," the Steel Seizure and "Dennis" cases are particularly perceptive. Another focus is the intellectual approach to judging each man employed. Some issues of judicial philosophy are raised, for example Jackson's pragmatic approach (promoting the effective functioning of the government) and Alexander Bickel's "counter-majoritarian difficulty." The bizarre Black-Jackson feud that erupts while Jackson is at Nuremberg is skillfully dissected and explained. There is much more of marked value in the book, supported by 46 pages of helpful endnotes, a 12 page bibliography, and some useful photographs. While one can quibble with the author's perhaps excessive opinions of Douglas and Jackson, and some of his other judgments, in the process one can learn a tremendous amount about these four unique individuals, the Court they made, and our constitutional history.

A Great Book about the mid-20th century Supreme Court
FDR appointed nine Supreme Court justices including the elevation of Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice. The collection of individuals who orbited around FDR during the New Deal and World War II and those who appointed to the Court are an amazing list of influential, intelligent, and inspiring people who helped shape America. This book focuses on four of FDR's Supreme Court nominees: Hugo Black, an Alabama Senator; Felix Frankfurter, one of the nation's foremost authorities on the Court who knew FDR from the Wilson Administration; William Douglas, the SEc Chairman who could never truly end his love affair with presidential politics; Robert Jackson, the fast rising Solicitor General, Attorney General, and prosecutor and Nuremberg.

Noah Feldman traces the rise of FDR as well as these four individuals. The author tells us of their careers, beliefs, and interaction prior to their court confirmations and then their struggles once there. It is a political, constitutional, and personal history of the United States largely between the 1930s and 1960s. You will learn about the wheeling and dealing behind presidential and vice-presidential nominations, the constitutional history of many monumental Supreme Court decisions largely culminating in Brown v. Board of Education, and the personal friendships, rivalries, and outright conflicts at play.

In addition to the main cast of four justices and FDR, major players include political insider and New Dealer Tommy "The Cork" Corcoran, short term Supreme Court Justice James Byrnes, Attorney General Francis Biddle, Democratic insider Robert Hannegan, and many others who colored our country's history.

Despite having read a fair amount about the Supreme Court during these times and even some biographies of the nominees, I learned a great deal from reading this book. Unlike other treatments, the author really gives Douglas his due as an important thinker on the court. Many other books dismiss Frankfurter as a liberal who shifted right on the court, but that is really only a small part of his story told here. Jackson's pragmatism made him harder to pigeonhole and his ambition always left him wanting something else such as the position of Chief Justice or the presidency. Hugo Black invented modern day originalism, though of course he bent over backwards for certain decisions, such as Brown v. BOE, to meet it.

FDR's years as president were impactful enough. But Noah Feldman shows that they were even farther reaching than we thought, coloring the Warren Court, Justice Brennan's liberal jurisprudence, and many of the constitutional questions the Court is still dealing with today involving privacy and the Bill of Rights as it affects the states.

Spectacular Readable Legal History!
Feldman has written a spectacularly excellent history of the Supreme Court FDR made, the Supreme Court that transformed American jurisprudence and shaped it into what it is today. Feldman writes a kind of history that is all too rare -- addictively readable stories of real human beings who shape Constitutional doctrine and made history in the process. Frankfurter, Douglas, Black, and Jackson fought with one another, an opinion at a time, a personal affront at a time, and gave us all the Constitution that now protects free speech, the rights of minorities, and counts the Bill of Rights as the center of the Constitution rather than an appendage, the Constitution that grows, developes, is anything but static. Others will write in detail about the contents of this book, I won't. I will simply say that for anyone who is even mildly interested in Constitutional law in our time, this is a wonderful read for the lay person, the law student, or the skilled practitioner -- a wonderful reminder that although we say we are a nation of laws, not men, it is men who make the laws we live by, and fallible all too human men who interpret and apply it.

The origins of modern constitutional law
It seems as if there's a veritable slew of good books about Supreme Court justices this year. The latest, Noah Feldman's Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices, focuses on four of Franklin Roosevelt's appointees: Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, Robert Jackson, and William O. Douglas.

Each of these justices is fascinating and could merit an individual biography (and there are biographies on each). By writing a joint biography, however, Feldman is really able to compare and contrast these men and their jurisprudence. Frankfurter was the activist law professor who was reluctant to exercise judicial review. Hugo Black, a former KKK member, became a noted civil libertarian and read the constitution literally. Robert Jackson, a small-town lawyer and later Nuremberg prosecutor, usually judged cases with an eye towards pragmatic policy solutions. William O. Douglas pined for political office but settled for preaching liberal values. Together, these men developed or promoted the modern constitutional doctrines of judicial restraint, originalism, pragmatism, and liberalism.

Outside the legal realm, these four justices often fought and bickered to a degree startling for four liberals appointed by the same president. Robert Jackson, who at law schools is portrayed as a reverential figure, got into a petty argument with Black over whether the latter should recuse himself in a case involving a former lawyer partner. Jackson even took his dispute public, sending cables from Nuremberg to impugn his colleague. Frankfurter viewed Black as an intellectual lightweight and relied on a network of mentees to conduct historical research against Black's legal philosophy. Douglas comes off as boorish, especially to his law clerks. However, there are some heartening moments too, such as when Frankfurter defends Jackson against the latter's former ungrateful law clerk, William Rehnquist.

I haven't been a fan of Feldman's past work, particularly the lightweight The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State (Council on Foreign Relations Book). However, I think he gets Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices just about right. For law students like me, I can recognize some of the cases and legal debates to which the book refers. It certainly furthered my understanding of these cases. Perhaps best of all, having a passing familiarity with these justices, I was still genuinely shocked by some of the book's anecdotes (particularly the petty fueds). However, it's generally accessible enough for any reader interested in American history to understand and enjoy.

My only "criticism" of Scorpions is that it's not long enough to do the subject full justice. I know, that's a common faux criticism. The main narrative essentially ends with Jackson's death in 1954, after Brown v. Board. However, Feldman alludes to tantalizing hints of how the other justices behaved afterwards. For example, Black and Douglas, despite being ideological allies during the 1950s, stopped speaking to each other in the late 1960s. Yet, Feldman doesn't really explain why. I felt like the book could really have benefitted from just a few more pages.

Overall, I'd highly recommend this for readers interested in the Supreme Court in particular, or just U.S. history generally. I'd also recommend Jeff Shesol's Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, which covers FDR's court-packing scheme and acts as a nice prequel to Scorpions.

IMOPORTANT SUPREME COURT HISTORY
Harvard Professor Noah Feldman's book SCORPIONS maybe one of the best books available on the history of the Supreme Court. This amazing book deals with the backgrounds and histories of and the terms of four FDR appointees, brilliant men, Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, Robert JaCkson, and William O. Douglas. Any reader of legal studies, histories, or educated read would easily recognize these gentlemen as giants of the Court. The book is rich with history and legal issues done in detail yet easy to read. HIGHLY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Excellent Legal and Political History
Noah Feldman's Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices is a superb piece of historical, political, and legal scholarship. I was made aware of the book by reviews in The Atlantic and The Economist, both of which praised the work. I concur wholeheartedly in their praise.

I've often wondered how human emotions and idiosyncrasies play into Supreme Court rulings. This book gives you examples from the mid twentieth century about how these impacted some of the most significant Supreme Court rulings in the history of the United States. That doesn't sound like a good thing on the surface, but the author explores how those emotions and idiosyncrasies opened the minds of these justices to create and compile some of the most significant theories of American constitutional law. These guys could be petty, vindictive, vengeful, rude, and maniacally egotistical, more often than not with each other, but they were also bright individuals who made positive contributions to American law and society. I don't always agree politically with all the contributions they made, but one cannot argue with the monumental impact of their decisions and opinions, even some of their dissents that did not ultimately become law.

If you have even a remote interest in America political history or American constitutional law, read this book. You will not be disappointed.

Keith ... Read more

Editorial Review

The Supreme Court is one of the most extraordinary institutions in our system of government. Charged with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution, the nine unelected justices of the Court have the awesome power to strike down laws enacted by our elected representatives. Why does the public accept the Court’s decisions as legitimate and follow them, even when those decisions are highly unpopular? What must the Court do to maintain the public’s faith? How can the Court help make our democracy work? These are the questions that Justice Stephen Breyer tackles in this groundbreaking book.

Today we assume that when the Court rules, the public will obey. But Breyer declares that we cannot take the public’s confidence in the Court for granted. He reminds us that at various moments in our history, the Court’s decisions were disobeyed or ignored. And through investigations of past cases, concerning the Cherokee Indians, slavery, and Brown v. Board of Education, he brilliantly captures the steps—and the missteps—the Court took on the road to establishing its legitimacy as the guardian of the Constitution.

Justice Breyer discusses what the Court must do going forward to maintain that public confidence and argues for interpreting the Constitution in a way that works in practice. He forcefully rejects competing approaches that look exclusively to the Constitution’s text or to the eighteenth-century views of the framers. Instead, he advocates a pragmatic approach that applies unchanging constitutional values to ever-changing circumstances—an approach that will best demonstrate to the public that the Constitution continues to serve us well. The Court, he believes, must also respect the roles that other actors—such as the president, Congress, administrative agencies, and the states—play in our democracy, and he emphasizes the Court’s obligation to build cooperative relationships with them.

Finally, Justice Breyer examines the Court’s recent decisions concerning the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, contrasting these decisions with rulings concerning the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. He uses these cases to show how the Court can promote workable government by respecting the roles of other constitutional actors without compromising constitutional principles.

Making Our Democracy Work is a tour de force of history and philosophy, offering an original approach to interpreting the Constitution that judges, lawyers, and scholars will look to for many years to come. And it further establishes Justice Breyer as one of the Court’s greatest intellectuals and a leading legal voice of our time. ... Read more

Reviews

Further Views on the Proper Role for the Supreme Court, September 21, 2010
This book is a continuation of the dialogue Justice Breyer began in his previous work "Active Liberty." There, he argued that the Court should implement greater participation of citizens in their government. Although he touched at points upon the originalist/literalist approach to interpretation favored by Justices Scalia and Thomas, in his typical polite and reasonable fashion he preferred to explain his approach rather than lob grenades at their dedication to text and originalism. This book too is polite and reasonable, but aims to look at a wider and more fundamental issue--how can the Court contribute to making a "workable democracy" by applying enduring constitutional values to ever-changing circumstances. The short answer in this pragmatic-oriented book, is for the Court to build productive relationships with other governing institutions, as it protects individual rights and searches for the values underlying the Constitution. In short, Breyer is again arguing for what might be termed a greater degree of "judicial modesty" which facilitates better governance.

Breyer first discusses the concept of judicial review, where it came from in Marbury v. Madison, and how history demonstrates (in the Cherokee removal, Dred Scott, and the Little Rock desegregation cases) how dependent the Court is upon ephemeral public support. Breyer is unique in his ability to explain historical and legal concepts in terms that the general reader can assimilate--a rare talent indeed. Basically, Bryer concludes, as long as the Court's opinions are "principled, reasoned, transparent and informative" it will hold public support. Once again, I was disappointed that his discussion of the Bush v. Gore case is highly polite and reasonable and does not, I am sure, reflect the intra-Court dynamics involved in that sad episode.

One of the most masterful sections of the book is where the Justice discusses why he thinks originalism, reliance upon text, and founders' history are not determinative in interpreting the Constitution or statutes. As usual, he is polite and positive, but he makes his point well. Rather, reliance upon purpose and consequences constitute a superior approach.

So, how should the Court proceed to build cooperative relationships? Breyer devotes individual chapters to answering this question as relates to Congress and statutes ("reasonable" interpretation), the executive branch and administrative agencies (recognize its greater expertise than courts), and the states and federalism (like Justice Brandeis, recognize the benefits of state and local experimentation and defer strongly). Two the best chapters in the book, for both the general reader and those better versed in the issues, address how the Court should deal with lower federal courts, and why precedent is important and when it should be followed (the current Court majority might find this discussion particularly illuminating).

The final section of the book deals with concepts such as permanent values, proportionality, "core elements," and "workable reality." These are somewhat intangible concepts, and Breyer's discussion may encourage some to embrace originalism, history and text as somewhat more substantial interpretative guidelines. He uses the Court's recent decisions in the Second Amendment and Guantanamo prison cases, as well as the 1940's Japanese relocation cases, to explore these concepts. It is quite interesting to peek into the mind of a sitting Justice (as it was with "Active Liberty") to see how he perceives the Court's role. This dimension is as helpful to the experienced student of the Court as it is to the average citizen.

The book runs some 254 pages including notes, and contains some illustrations and an appendix designed to quickly educate the general reader about the Court and how it works. Although sometimes Breyer seems to be "up in the clouds" as he tackles ephemeral concepts, there is no question that this is one of the rare books that really opens up the reader's mind to new concepts and considerations.

Enjoyable and insightful, September 24, 2010
I liked this book for many reasons, but two stand out. First, it is an interesting contextualization of the path our country has taken starting out from the basic "idea" of the role of the Supreme Court in the American political system as envisioned by the Founders, to the current manifestation of that role, replete with twists and turns along the way. Second, and very much in the intellectual spirit of his previous book (which I also really liked), it is a reminder that our government is only as good as we, its citizens, are: active, educated and engaged participants allow the engine to function as it should, with the Court serving in its role as, in Justice Breyer's words, the border patrol that makes sure nothing enacted by Congress violates the basic precepts forth by the framers. I enjoyed Justice Breyer's prose style and also found the individual cases he discusses, and his take on them, incredibly interesting in their own right. I would highly recommend this book to anyone, left right and center, who has a pulse and cares about our country ... how a series of ideas set forth a couple hundred years ago are being manifest in contemporary American society. An important book that I suspect history will look on kindly.

How government works, September 27, 2010
First, I think it's important to state that I don't think Breyer wrote this book to promote a political point of view. Quite the opposite: he shows remarkable restraint and a willingness to try and explain fairly the basis for differing opinions held on important cases.

His reason for writing this book was to educate U.S. citizens how government works and the principles that judges and justices try to follow in deciding cases. He explained his hope that, if we better understand these things, we'll have more confidence in our government and be actively interested in how our government works. Better citizens, in other words.

I'd say that there is one subject that gets Breyer up on his soapbox: he firmly believes that the courts can produce the best results in support of a workable democracy by applying a practical consideration of legislative intent, values, subsidiarity, specialization, appropriate deference to expertise and several other concepts. He makes a pretty good case for this approach. Each additional layer of guiding principles, taken by itself, seems reasonable enough, but when he guides the reader through the balancing act that judges have to go through in selecting and applying the relevant principles in appropriate proportion to a particular case, it really gave me an appreciation for how difficult and complex this can be.

I especially enjoyed his review of a number of landmark cases, including Marbury vs Madison, Dred Scott, Brown vs Board of Education, a couple of cases regarding Japanese internment during WWII and four cases involving Guantanamo detainees. Very informative.

Breyer's writing style is clear, easy to follow, and a pleasure to read. I highly recommend this book.

Aimed at non-lawyers, but lawyers who want to know how judges think will be fascinated., October 6, 2010
Any book by a Supreme Court justice is worth reading, this book is not an exception. The case discussions are at a law school constitutional law class level. In this sense, this part of the book is not new for lawyers, but non-lawyers will find it enlightening.

Where the book excels is the rich detail that surrounds cases. That detail helps to understand what justices who employed the pragmatic approach would have considered.

After reading sections such as the pragmatic approach vs. the originalism approach, I felt the book was incomplete; I needed to get a more complete view. The book's last paragraph suggests that was Justice Breyer's intent when it states "The stories this book sets forth are told from the point of view of one judge", "I hope they lead others to study and ponder their lessons about our constitutional history."

If the book gave a more balanced view, not necessitating further research on my part, I would have given it another star, perhaps I am being too grudging with the 5th star.

Suggestion for reading this book. Look over the appendices first, because:
* The text of the book doesn't mention there are photos in the back.
* The back contains a well written explanation of how the Supreme Court works.
* All the footnotes, really endnotes, are in the back of the book; in legal writing much can be gained by reading the footnotes.

A sober and thoughtful analysis of the role of the judiciary, October 4, 2010
The negative reviews of this book treat it as just another radical liberal screed. Those reviewers either have not read the book or have a huge political chip on their shoulders. Thoughtful, reasoned and sober are the adjectives that first come to my mind. If you are interested in an enlightened exposition of the proper balance between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government this is a great place to start.

An important book for our times, September 23, 2010
This book is a page turner and highlights the hallmarks of Justice Breyer: wisdom, insight, modesty and a deep belief in the US system of government.

The first part of the book highlights the Court's role in the suppression and later provision of Civil Rights for minorities in the US. Justice Breyer's storytelling is very moving and shows his depth of knowledge and understanding of the constitutional issues.

The rest of the book deals with the art of judging and duties and obligations of the Court.

This is a highly stimulating and well written book. More importantly, I believe it is an important book for our times. I highly recommend it.

Great for the laity, November 27, 2010
Justice Breyer lays out, in a clear and easy-to-follow yet convincing manner how and why "we the people" have come to regard the Supreme Court throughout the ages. By tracing the Court's origins in decisions like Marbury v. Madison all the way to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Breyer shows us how the public's reaction to the court evolves over time and becomes the Court our forefathers envisioned.

Not only that, but he makes a compelling case for his methods of interpreting the Constitution and anyone, even those side more with Justice Scalia's methods, would be well advised to pick up this book if for no other reason than to get a better idea of his methodologies.

Thoughtful and interesting, November 5, 2010
In "Making our Democracy Work," Justice Breyer expands upon his treatise "Active Liberty" with several interesting examples of how the Judiciary established its role, and how it needs to act to maintain credibility as the guarantor of liberties established in the Constitution. Justice Breyer's uses counter examples, such as Dred Scott, showing the Court doesn't always get it right (and history may hold one of the negative reviews here correct with a couple more counter examples).

I had hoped this work would expand a bit more on the role of the citizen in making our democracy work, but Justice Breyer really only pays lip service to this in the Conclusion. Still, illuminating the role of the weakest branch of government through the lens of some of our history's most important and controversial cases provides a fascinating peek into the function of the court.

The thoughtfulness that goes into deciding cases should make us all thankful that the Founding Fathers had the foresight to implement independent checks and balances in the American form of government.

Making Our Democracy Work, October 19, 2010
Stephen Breyer presents a comprehensive history of the Constitution and beginning of our nation with the debates surrounding some of the elements of the Constitution by our founding fathers during the administration of President Washington through to today. He describes how the importance of the court system evolved over time, especially the unique role of the Supreme Court.

The areas of law that the Supreme Court reviews are outlined with different chapters discussing each area, provides examples and reasoning behind both the majority decision and dissenting viewpoint giving validity to both. It is highly readable with explanations provided in layman's terms. A must read for all who are interested or desire to learn the importance and workings of our highest court.

Trust, December 11, 2010
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's new book, Making Our Democracy Work, presents a civics primer about how the court fits into our society and government. This practical book is accessible to all readers and can provide insight into the context in which the court operates, and the historical and current importance of securing and maintaining public trust. An ongoing question is whether or not the public will follow the court's decisions, and Breyer sees an important role of the court in helping laws work well in practice. He provides a perspective on past and current cases that is both readable and interesting for any citizen.

Rating: Three-star (Recommended)
... Read more

Editorial Review

A compilation of important American government documents including the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights and all amendments to the United States Constitution. An excellent educational reference tool to have on hand.

This is a DRM FREE digital edition (NO Digital Rights Management!), with linked Table of Contents. ... Read more

Reviews

A Must-Read For Every American To Ensure Its Survival, October 16, 2008
Recently, I purchased this wonderful offering at the listed bargain-basement price from Amazon.com - and thank goodness Amazon understands the singular necessity for providing these documents that form what all Americans have believed is our We-The-People Consitutional Democracy. My concern, however, is just how many Americans today have read this - and if not, why? It is astonishing to read even one sentence of the US Constitution for example and, given our dire national events in play, realize for perhaps a frightening instant that an issue for any state or federal appellate court might be: Does the US Consitution apply in any respect, anymore, to the way our three branches of government (the judiciary, the legislative and executive branches) work today? Or put another way, has the US Consitution become, in effect, null and void?! I cannot answer this question for anyone else - but if you care about America - please buy and read this small book...and then tell a friend who will tell another. Perhaps, one day enough Americans will have read it as a start to making it a reality as a matter of our everyday lives once again....

Durable Desk-top Edition, April 13, 2010
As for the content, what can anyone say about the Founding Fathers than what the Constitution they wrote and enacted ensured for us!

The book itself is the desk-top version of a pocket edition except built for page turning and margin notes. I penciled in the content at the top of each page to quicken my research.

Buy it.

Woody

Familiarizing Myself Again, September 27, 2009
I have recently left the Republican party and joined the Constitutional Party in hopes that a better tomorrow can be found for our government. I needed to remember "whereof I speak" so purchased this very good, concise issue that fits well into my briefcase. As a middle school teacher, I want to be ready with the truth, and not the tripe printed in the textbooks.

Very nice piece, November 16, 2010
Very happy with the overall presentation. No anti-american discalimer. The only thing I wish they had done, is put a heading over the pages to show when you were looking at the constitution, declaration, resolutions, etc. This would allow you to find these other works faster.

a-must-have, May 1, 2010
A document every American should have and understand. Also, should be required reading in our school systems.

Everyone should own a copy, April 10, 2010
Everyone should own a copy of our Constitution and READ IT! We have rights you wouldn't believe and the government is trying to take rights that are in the constitution! Every American should carry a copy.

Our Secular Bible, July 22, 2008
I decided to read this book because to me it is the best secular bible for Americans. It should be read by every secular American in the same way that the religious read the bible. I had lost my copies and this book includes them in one copy.

Next best book after the Bible., September 2, 2010
We need to know the details of our Constitution and what made America great. Especially when our freedoms are in jeopardy. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The Law was originally published in French in 1850 by Frederic Bastiat. It was written two years after the third French Revolution of 1848 and a few months before his death of tuberculosis at age 49. It is the work for which Bastiat is most famous. This translation to American English is from 1874. ... Read more

Reviews

The most common sense logic written on government., January 18, 1999
I read this book in 1980; at the time I was chairman of the democratic party in my county. I really began to do some serious soul searching. I finally concluded I was going to leave my party, as It no longer represented it's founder Mr Thomas Jefferson. This small simple easy to read book totally changed my life That same year I met Jim Hansen, he was making his first run for congress from the state of Utah, I made a deal with him, I would vote for him if he would read The Law by Bastiat. He promised, and I did. I received a nice letter from Jim after he was elected. " Never read a book that has so impressed me". P.S. "Find Yourself another copy, Im keeping Yours". Jim.

Best three dollars ever spent. Ron Steele Moab, Utah

Should be required reading in Washington, D.C., January 31, 2006
What book is is important enough that I read it once a year? The Law by Frederic Bastiat. Written in 1848 as a response to socialism in France, this book essay is just as relevant today as it was then.

"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right-from God-to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."

My copy of The Law is filled with highlighted yellow phrases. Among them:

"But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.

Every legislator should be forced to read Bastiat's The Law once a month for their entire term and write a synopsis of how they have upheld the ideas contained within it. The tome should be taught in our school systems. It should be drilled into every citizen's head from birth until death."

When he was alive, Bastiat called the United States the one nation in the world that came close to applying law in a just manner. If he could visit us today, he would puke all over the steps of Congress. He would barf in the halls of the White House. He would upchuck in lobbyists offices all over Washington, D.C. When he was done throwing up, I do believe Bastiat would start a revolution.

He would definitely take on our current system of governance because we're turning into Socialism Lite 'Less Filling, More Taxes.'

"Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.

In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals - the farmer wastes some seeds and land - to try out an idea.

But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind!

It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator's genius. This idea - the fruit of classical education - has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.

Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man - and a principle of discernment in man's intellect - they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange."

Read The Law. It will change all your assumptions about what the role of government should be in your life in only 76 pages. When you're done, make your friends read The Law. If they won't, stop being friends with them. Send a copy to your Representatives and Congressmen and ask them what the hell they think they're doing with this country of ours.

On Amazon.com's scale of 1-10.........no less than a 12, January 28, 1998
To read this essay knowing nothing of the author or when he wrote it, one would never guess that it was first published 150 years ago. This book is as timeless as ANY publication in human history. Bastiat demonstrates a thorough and flawless understanding of both the bright and dark sides of human nature, of the essential role each has played in the growth and divergence of collectivist and (18th century) liberal ideologies, and most importantly, the resulting tendency for government, in all of its most common manifestations, to grow and for liberty to yield. The principles proffered herein are the very genesis of the body of thought most commonly attributed to such brilliant authors as Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, Adam Smith, and Thomas Paine. Bastiat was the consummate humanitarian, and a genius with no peer. If you read no other book during your lifetime, read "The Law".

PRINTING PROBLEM IN THIS ITEM, August 30, 2008
The substance of Bastiat's "The Law" is critical and accurate.

The good people at Cosimo Books, however, cut off the printing before the end of the book -- the penultimate section of the book ends in mid-sentence, and the last section of the book isn't there at all.

So I do very much encourage everyone to read Bastiat's "The Law," just don't buy this version from this publisher. (Buy it from the Mises Institute instead.)

Concise, Powerful, Elegant Defense of Liberty and the Law, August 11, 1999
When I read F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," I thought I had read the most inspired and compelling book ever to discredit socialism and other collective-isms. I was wrong...very wrong. I cannot believe Bastiat wrote "The Law" in the middle of the 19th century since it has so much applicability to the 20th (and soon to be 21st) century. If ever there was a concise and powerful argument for defending Liberty and the Law against every social engineer, this has to be it (only 75 pages!). Bastiat is a master of words and the analogy. Every lover of freedom who wishes to get a nutshell understanding of why Liberty and Law matters ought to read this book. Every enemy of freedom (e.g. liberals, socialists, communists, etc.) ought to fear it.

A 19th Century Writer Gives Birth To 21st Century Ideology, May 23, 2001
Fredric Bastiat was a 19th century French law-maker, economist and author. He wrote a number of highly technical works of economic theory, books that are still considered valuable contributions to free-market economic thought. But his least technical work, a pamphlet called The Law, has proven to be perhaps his most enduring from a modern political standpoint.

Written in 1850, just two years after the French Revolution of 1848, the Law is part treatise and part polemic, an appeal to the French people reminding them of the proper sphere of the law and government and begging them to turn away from their descent into socialism. The Law is also a summary of much of what Bastiat considered to be important from his own work; at the time The Law was written he was very sick, and he would be dead within a year of its publication. As a French patriot, Bastiat was deeply moved by the disintegration he saw in French society.

As the last vestiges of the class-society were replaced and the new "democratic" order was being instituted, the State was more and more being used as a means by which groups of citizens (special interests) could plunder one another through taxes, transfer payments, tariffs, etc, committing what Bastiat calls "legal plunder." As he saw it, the law was being perverted into a so-called "creative" entity, through which controlling groups would seek to enforce their particular agendas at the expense and through the pocketbooks of the people in general.

Bastiat argues that the law should be properly viewed as the formal embodiment of Force. That is, human laws should be the organized and formal construction of justice. Just law, he says, is nothing more than the organization of the human right to self-defense. This is a surprisingly narrow definition, perhaps almost too narrow to be truly useful. But I can imagine that Bastiat wouldn't have seen much moral value in the philosophy of pragmatism; he certainly would have made a bad present-day politician, a "flaw" which I find highly admirable.

Bastiat is revered by many modern libertarians as one of the founding fathers of their ideology, and rightly so. But it seems to me that his work is more accurately anarcho-capitalist than libertarian. To say that Bastiat is arguing for "limited" government is a gross understatement. In fact, Bastiat seems instead to be arguing for the abolition of most all of what today we would call The Government. Many libertarians, for example, probably wouldn't argue the abolition of all forms of taxation on moral grounds. Personally I appreciate his definition of plunder as "...tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on..."

Obviously although Bastiat may not share the views of modern libertarians in every respect, they have much to respect in him. And of course, the average economic and social liberal won't care for him at all, as he makes a special point of going after the vast majority of liberal sacred cows. But more surprisingly, the Religious Right should be wary of taking Bastiat on as too great of an ally. Although Bastiat and his book have been instrumental in forming many right-wing/libertarian ideas about free markets and the proper role of government, Bastiat argues forcefully against the use of the law as a tool for the shaping of moral values. Jerry Falwell and Bastiat are notably out of step with one another. I can imagine that Bastiat would not have much use for the Congressional institution of days of prayer, or for teacher-led prayer in the public schools he so despised, for anti-drug and pro-abstinence programs, or for the ministerial functions that many politicians have sought to usurp.

Conservatives have an unfortunate habit of revering political figures. But as Bastiat says, "There are too many 'great' men in the world--legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it."

Bastiat didn't believe in the inherent value of rulers of men. Many conservatives hope that their sons will grow up to be leaders in a political sense. Bastiat believed that we would be better served if more people sought to be useful, productive, inventive and moral, instead of trying to lead all the rest of society. Society will function much more desirably when we relinquish the desire for power over our fellow men, and instead seek power over our own actions.

Although Bastiat's views on law and government may be too simplistic and dated to be implemented literally in a modern society, I believe that there is still much instruction to be had from this book. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in developing an understanding of the roots of modern libertarian thought.

A great introduction to Libertarian Philosophy, July 11, 2000
Frederick Bastiat was a French Farmer in the first half of the 19th century who watched his country's government assume more and more power. That is what I thought made this book unique - In the first paragraph, he states his intent of the book to be an "alert" to his countrymen - which is probably why the book is so emotional as well as succinct.

Bastiat manages to describe the purpose of "law," from a religious standpoint, in the first 3-4 pages. The rest of the book is mostly specific details of how his description of the proper purpose of the law has been thwarted in France in 1850. Many of the same principals apply today.

For three bucks and an hour of your time, this book is guaranteed to engage you and make you think. In my experience, its ability to persuade people is uncanny.

Negative Rights Positively Explained, October 4, 2000
Does the government take care of you by making sure you are left free from interference by others? Or does it give form and substance to your freedom by making sure you are given, by the government, enough Maslowian scaffolding to get you within jumping distance of the last triangle of self-actualization at the top of the pyramid of your desires? That's always the question. I'd be free if only someone would pay off my mortgage, or do my homework, or abort my inconvenient child for me. Here in this book is a very good template to evaluate these alternative viewpoints, especially appropriate for smart high school kids, since it furnishes ammunition to carry them through most of the garbage they will find littered in their books, written on their classroom walls, and mincingly elaborated by their discontented, yet strangely power-hungry liberal law professors, all of whom will basically insist on refuting the truth of what Bastiat identifies as the central fact of state power: That the government is "not a breast that fills itself with milk." High school boys especially like that part. Yet this is what so many people think--and Keynes even monkeyed together some funny looking math to show how dollars taxed away and then re-spent by the government become supercharged, and are better for the economy than un-taxed and un-respent dollars held privately. Here is where he meets our Founding generation--all of whom saw how dangerous it was to cede too much function to any government, which of course would need more and more money to fund these activities. Am I straying from the point? No. Just look at our political contests: craven beg-fests for votes based on what the government can spend on you, or how the internet will bring it all "closer" to you. For your benefit. And if someone wants to take less from people in the first place, that's "spending [by the government] on the richest 1%"--who of course have had much more taken from them to begin with. Bastiat explains, in universal terms not hinged to any particular group of pilgrims, kings, or communists, how the law is enlisted in the plunder of the many by the few who control the law, and how law must be continually twisted into unjust forms to keep up the subsidies, the taxes, the programs, all designed to treat the same population differently. His greatest example, though, is to contrast liberty with the perversion of law, (and here he partakes in some cultural non-relativism) by using the image of a tribe of natives who flatten the noses, pierce the ears and lips, bend-up the feet, and depress the foreheads of their newborns, insisting these are signs of beauty. The same thing is done to our laws and our liberty by the socialist plunderers, according to Bastiat, unforgettably according to Bastiat. Would the next generation of any country be more or less likely to make a world-and-life-view out of sucking up to government employees for their prescription drugs, family planning, education, utility bill assistance, or internet domain monopolies if they read this book in time to become immune to the excuse-making and false moralizing of socialism? So do we put the govenment in charge of our kids, our sick grandparents, and our businesses, so we can finally be more "free?" You read Bastiat and be the judge.

Text also available on-line, December 21, 1999
The text of Bastiat's most prominent essays is available on-line, so you can make up your mind on your own. Start browsing from bastiat.org, it's well worth the trip. When you've read Bastiat, you'll just want to acquire a paper copy of the book, and you can still use digital copies to share it with other people.

Excellent !!!, October 20, 2004
I read "The Law" as part of my Civics course this year in highschool, and I'm SOOOOOOOO glad it was required. At 16, I'm scared to death at where my country is heading and this book contains the answers for a government and law system that'd make a country I'd be proud of in every way. This is a book I'd buy in bulk and stuff in newspaper boxes if I had the means -as it is all my friends are going to get it for Christmas along with a glowing report from myself. Heck, who needs to wait for Christmas, ELECTION DAY IS COMING!

This book was originally in a pamphlet format and is a wonderful short summary of what the natures of law and government are and what they should be. But because of this format, many of his arguements are brief, and he acknowledges that not all of them are complete.

He starts out stating the gifts of God to man are: life, liberty and property. Bastiat insists that man is allowed to defend himself, his liberty, and his property, and that "the Law" was created to ensure that society would be allowed to make use of their God-given gifts.

Then the he goes on to explain how "the Law" is abused by men. He states there are two basic ways of living, the first is to work hard and produce, and the second is to plunder and live off of others. When man finds that plundering is easier than work, he will plunder. The only thing that will stop him is if there are consequences that he will have to deal with and dangers that he must risk. Bastiat shows how tempting it is for man to use the law to plunder (how "legal plunder" is the taking of property, which -if done without the benefit of the law- would have been a dealt with as a crime). He goes on to explain how this "legal plundering" will ruin a society and cause economic turmoil.

Bastiat then goes into socialism, and how it plays out in society. He gives examples of various socialist writers, and points out how they view mankind as some raw material that is to be controlled and manipulated. Frederic Bastiat shows how they divide mankind into two classes, with themselves as the nobler of the two, and the rest of man as evil masses that are to be shaped and guided by their own uses of "the Law" and made to be good. They consider themselves to be above the rest, and capable of making better choices than the rest of the world.

Even though it was written in the 1800's, Bastiat writing is extremely relevant today, and deals with the issues of welfare, government schools, and other subsidies of the law that are not to be. He states that "the law is justice" and that "the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning" for justice only exists when injustice is absent. It clearly defines socialism for what it is and gives various examples of the results of it. This book has to be (as another reviewer has said) the liberal's worst nightmare.
SO READ IT! USE IT! SHARE IT! ... Read more

Editorial Review

An essential resource for anyone interested in our nation's religious heritage and the Founders' intended role for the American judicial system. Original Intent combines hundreds of quotes from primary sources with the author's exposition on hot topics such as revisionism, judicial activism, and separation of church and state. A substantial appendix encompasses full texts of the founding documents, biographical sketches of numerous Founders, and extensive reference notes. ... Read more

Reviews

Original Intent by David Barton, A must read, June 11, 2008
Original Intent By David Barton

This book has meticulous foot notes and references to it's sources. Barton uses the words of the founding fathers themselves to make his points. He uses actual court cases, and even puts the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in the back of the book for your reference. The author presents the material in a clear and precise manner, and the reader can easily look up, reference, and test his conclusions themselves (his footnotes and index make it that easy) ..... Better yet, Barton actually invites the reader to read the federalist and anti-federalist (the words of the founding fathers themselves) papers after reading this book . If Barton's conclusions are false as some have concluded he's definitely a horrible revisionist since he gives the reader all the ammunition in the world to check his sources and refute him.

This book has done more for my understanding our founding fathers than the many secular based history texts I've pawned through. The author is thorough, complete, and as I said earlier he gives the reader all the power by giving him/her the power to reference the original documents. The truth is many of our founding fathers were Christians, did read the bible, and most wouldn't approve of the course of action taken against religious expression in our country today. This is a worthy read for the Christian and secular skeptic alike. Truly, this is a must read!!!!

Postscript: There have been many attacks on this book and those who give favorable reviews to it (as of this date the reviews are 44 five star reviews and 30 some one star reviews). Instead of believing what any man says I urge the reader to do what I'm doing.... Look up the material yourself... Read the book, check it's sources, and make your own conclusion... Don't let the many individuals who leave nasty comments under these reviews steal from you your right to make your own conclusion....

A good summary of the founding fathers' views, May 5, 2008
I guess it is not surprising to find so many one-star reviews about a book that dispels so many myths about the original intent of the founding fathers' who wrote the Constitution. Of course there can be some fault found with some of the citations used by Barton in this wonderful book, but those who find fault with the citations cannot really overcome the overwhelming evidence in this book that the current courts have far overstepped anything that the founders intended in not recognizing and establishing a single church vs. their views that religion is a fundamental foundation for the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution.
If you read this book, you should also read the Federalist Papers, the words and works of the founders, including Washington's first inaugural address to understand that the current courts have radically departed from the intentions of the founders when it came to the role of religion, vs. established churches in the USA. For many generations, the original intent of the founders was well understood, but it was only until the 20th century that judges decided to re-write the Constitution and take on the role of "a national theology board" that makes earlier debates about how many angels fit on the head of a pin look enlightened.
A must-read for anyone wondering where our nation has gone wrong.

Based on fact, whether you like it or not, June 1, 2008
After seeing Rick Green present at our church in Cedar Park, TX, I had to get this book. I am very glad I did. David Barton did a fantastic job of including references for everything. I don't believe there is anyone who can claim that the statements or conclusions made in this book are false or opinion. Only those who don't read the book can be told that it contains false claims and believe that.

Read the negative comments posted here. The people posting them have clearly either (a) not read the book, or (b) are so left-wing that they will say anything to try to keep you from purchasing and reading this book. Don't listen to their opinions, read the facts presented in this book for yourself.

Will the real revisionist please stand up?, December 26, 2007
This book has 55 pages of footnotes that reference original documents referred to in this book. The book only has 533 pages which means over ten percent of it is footnotes.

The people who accuse this book of revisionist history have clearly never checked out any of the original documents. And do not supply more than one or two footnotes.
I haven't checked them all out myself but I have checked out many, and I trust the man who refers to the original material more than I trust people who think name calling is a valid argument. This book is for real, the negative reviewers are just blowing bias a smokescreen in your faces.

An excellent resource!, March 17, 2007
Barton shows how the Supreme Court reinterpreted the US Constitution, diluting the Biblical foundations upon which it was based. He includes quotes from the Founding Fathers showing their beliefs on the role of religion in the public square, the limited role of the courts, and the intended limits on federal powers. An excellent and well documented reference! This should be part of the curriculum for every college and high school history course!

I have read and research everything Barton has written. He is incredibly accurate., June 25, 2008
The first clue that Mr. Barton is telling the truth is the torrent of scathing reviews from the Secularists. I have personally reviewed the facts presented in Barton's books, and have found them to be not just factually accurate, but intellectually honest.

The first thing to remember about secular historicism, is that the facts don't matter, just the political agenda.

We Americans write our own history. And the chapters of which we're proudest are the ones where we had the courage to change. - Al Gore, Speech at the Democratic National Convention (28 August 1996)

This is some great stuff, January 15, 2008
David Barton has assembled a very impressive amount of original source material here. He makes a very compelling case that the Founding Fathers were largely orthodox Christians (not deists, as revisionist historians are so fond of claiming) and that the current Supreme Court dogma on the role of religion in government is a far cry from what the Founding Fathers actually intended.

With regards to the negative reviews, I rather suspect that their issue was more that they didn't like Barton's conclusions than that his original source material is bad. They know they can't back up their nonsense about the Founding Fathers being deists and atheists. David Barton has really shown that the emperor has no clothes. He also shows that the revisionists tend to cite very little primary source material themselves, and when they do they frequently take quotes out of context.

In an age of falsehoods, I'm glad that someone has the courage to stand up to the revisionists and tell the truth about the Founding Fathers. Barton has done some very good work here, and quotes primary source material extensively. Although not everyone will agree with every word (those who went to public school may find it particularly troubling, since the public schools generally teach history in a highly inaccurate way), this book is thought-provoking, well-researched, and well-written. I recommend it without reservation.

A Great Source of the Founding Fathers, January 11, 2008
This is an excellent work, just for the biographical information it contains. There may be some minor errors and heterodox opinions in the book, but it's claim that the Christian Framers framed a Nation of Christian States has sufficient evidence.

Other reviewers attack Barton's work on secondary issues, with a fine tooth comb I might add, that some would think absurd, but the evidence is clear, religion was left to the states, with the states choosing Christianity as their religion. How far have we fallen:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government.
Thomas Jefferson
Second Inaugural Address, 1805

Based on this quote, let's see what religion the people of the states established.

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), (until 1876) stated: There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other. Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), (until 1851) stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion." That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested... on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality... yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792),(in force until 1877) required senators and representatives to be of the: Protestant religion. The Constitution stipulated: Article I, Section VI. And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws. And no subordination of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law. [p.469]

The Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated: Article XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust... shall... make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:"I, ___, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." [p.203]

Besides Georgia, the other states believed the same. That these constitutions are inherently Christian can easily be deduced from its words:

Virginia
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786)
Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free...the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind...his Almighty power to do...That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever...

This makes sense because Jefferson believed he was a Christian.

Jefferson uses encompasses all religions but the right comes from the Lord. Madison uses the same words "Holy author of our religion" in 1812, showing our religion was a form of Christianity, not every religion. This also proves Madison's recommendation for the First Amendment(National Religion) is referring only to a form of Christianity.

Penn Const. of 1790
Sec. 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty god according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent;

The key word being "ministry" this word at that time only referring to Christianity, as Webster's 1828 shows:

MIN''ISTRY, n. [L. ministerium.] The office, duties or functions of a subordinate agent of any kind.
1. Agency; service; aid; interposition; instrumentality.
He directs the affairs of this world by the ordinary ministry of second causes.


2. Ecclesiastical function; agency or service of a minister of the gospel or clergyman in the modern church, or of priests, apostles and evangelists in the ancient. Acts 1. Rom.12. 2 Tim.4. Num.4.

3. Time of ministration; duration of the office of a minister, civil or ecclesiastical.

A light, October 6, 2007
This book brings to light what many wish to suppress. The name calling and ridicule of other reviews only shows that this book has truth. When people feel they have to slander instead of argue or let people discover the truth for themselves, you know a book must have something to offer. It doesn't take much time to see the faith of the founders. If those who dislike this book would read the second Federalist, any of John Wither-spoon's writings, George Washington's farewell address and on and on. When people disregard what is argued in this book, they show that they are not students of the Founders writings. Every Prof of American history I have had acknowledges their faith.

Captivating, enlightening, & completely true. Read for yourself., December 12, 2007
I am not a voracious reader, but I devoured this book. I found it to be almost hypnotic while at the same time enraging. As a casual observer of politics from right of center, I have long been aware of the abuses of the judiciary toward our religious freedoms, but I had no idea how far we had fallen. David Barton has not only opened my eyes to the true "Original Intent" of the founders of this great nation, he has equipped me with the truth so that I can beat down the lies that continually and relentlessly emerge from the left. (Just read a few of the 1-star reviews of this book for some examples.) This book should be the required textbook of every history class in the nation. Read it and judge for yourself. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Reviews

Tom Woods does it again, June 28, 2010
Tom Woods' latest book is another example of the author doing what he does best--dissecting political and economic failure by striking at the root of the problem and offering common sense and constitution-based solutions, something he always does in an easy to comprehend, everyman style. Ironically, the solutions Woods offers are often considered unconventional or controversial, but only by the same professional talking heads who got us into virtually every mess the author addresses.

As with his bestseller "Meltdown," in which Woods explained how the Federal Reserve and government intervention were primary culprits in the ongoing recession, "Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century," is a how-to for Americans fed up with an out-of-control Washington, DC. Question: How can we expect a federal government no longer restrained by the Constitution to be contained by that document any time in the future? Answer: by containing it ourselves.

Woods argues that Americans concerned about federal overreach--on everything from the imposition of national healthcare to medicinal marijuana laws--should revisit the "principles of '98," as in 1798, when James Madison and Thomas Jefferson famously insisted that the federal government, as Woods puts, "cannot be permitted to hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation" or the "exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers," or it would continue to grow, "regardless of elections, the separation of powers and other much-touted limits on government power."

Per the 10th amendment and Madison and Jefferson's example, Woods argues that states should render void--or nullify--oppressive federal mandates, as not only a necessary measure, but perhaps the only possible way Americans might ever stuff the beast in Washington back into its constitutional box. Woods points out that nullification is not only an old, all-American concept whose time has come, but is far more practical method of substantively addressing today's problems than the false solutions offered by the Left/Right, two-party paradigm, a truly archaic political model which has kept us distracted from the real dilemma of unchecked government power--something our rulers laughably keep insisting they will keep in check so long as their own party holds all the power in government.

FOX News host Judge Andrew Napolitano is correct when he says "In clear and well-documented arguments, Tom Woods gives hope to those who wish to tame the federal monster as the Framers intended--by using the utterly lawful and historically accepted principle of Nullification." Indeed. And with his latest offering, Tom Woods has given Americans who genuinely want to "take their country back" the blueprint to do just that.

Tom Woods Gives Us Real American History, June 28, 2010
Full disclosure: I am a personal friend of Tom Woods. Even so, I like some of his books more than others, but _Nullification_ is definitely one of his gems. Until I read this book, I had no idea that the concept of nullification was NOT invented in, say, 1858 by the legislatures of southern states.

On the contrary, Woods shows that this was an idea championed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and flowed seamlessly from the "compact theory of the Union." Nullification was not an ad hoc principle dreamed up in a particular battle over states' rights, but instead was an integral part of Jefferson's philosophy of a federation in which the central government only received enumerated (and strictly limited) powers from the states who constituted the Union.

This book is a great read for anyone who loves colonial and early US history. Woods sketches a vision of early America that we didn't learn in grade school. For example, the handbill announcing the "Anti-Slave-Catchers' Mass Convention" (p. 82) is amazing--outraged citizens in Wisconsin didn't want to hand over an escaped slave as the feds dictated (under the Fugitive Slave Act). This episode is but one example that Woods provides, to prove that very often "states' rights" were used to *protect* liberty. Is that really so hard to understand--that sometimes the *federal* government is the bad guy?

A surprise in this book is Chapter 4, "What Is (or Are) the United States, Anyway?" Here Woods makes a compelling argument for the compact theory of the Union, which is the view that the federal government was created by the individual States when they ratified the Constitution. (A nationalist view holds that "the people of the United States" collectively formed the central government, and that therefore the individual state governments are subordinate to it.)

Much of Woods' evidence I had read before, but a new one was his focus on the Declaration of Independence itself, which says:

"...That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do" (qtd p. 97).

Woods points out that if the individual States, upon their declaration of independence, retained the rights to *start wars and contract alliances*, then surely they were sovereign political entities, in the way that France and Great Britain were separate States. It is then an easy matter to show that at no point, whether with the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution (which after all was ratified NOT by the American public but by the individual states), did these initially sovereign states cede all of their powers to the U.S. government.

All in all, an excellent book that provides a new look at American history, but also draws lessons that are very relevant in today's political battles.

The Revolution Gets Teeth, June 28, 2010
There's a lot of talk about "revolution" these days--the Ron Paul version being the loudest and most sweeping--but as far as I know, none of the revolutions being talked about have teeth. Paul's is focused on first auditing the Federal Reserve, then getting rid of it altogether, but that takes acts of Congress, which, barring any sea change in the near future, isn't going to be committing any such act as good for the country as that.

Enter Thomas E. Woods, who wrote the succinct, powerful Meltdown about the economic crisis. Woods looks back to the age of unprecedented American prosperity (the early nineteenth century) for an idea that will move the country forward in all respects: nullification. The idea is pretty simple: states have the right to simply reject anything the federal government puts out that expressly contradicts the Constitution. This revolution is much more easily obtained as it requires the participation of a state, not the entire country.

As the documents in Part II of the book reveal, Woods bases his concept of writings all published before the Civil War. To many, that might sound quaint, but to others, that age represented the peak of liberty on Earth (at least certain demographics). Only if we look to the original intent of the United States can we really understand the potential of this country. As Woods writes, was the United States supposed to be just another run-of-the-mill centralized power or was the United States created as a conglomerate of independent political societies?

The answer, of course, is the latter. But that has been confused as the power-hungry D.C. types look to consolidate control over the entire population. They want socialism. But they don't want socialism just for themselves (which would be fine), they want it for you too, and everyone else, which is not fine. Should not citizens in this country be able to "opt out" of a corrupt, self-destructive federalism?

Woods' answer is yes. He shows that nullification has a rich history and is, in fact, at the core of the original intent of the country.

If you're serious about smaller government, read this book., June 28, 2010
There have been so many conservative and libertarian books complaining about how Congress has exceeded its constitutional powers and the federal government has grown far beyond what the Founding Fathers ever intended.

This one is different: It actually shows how we could do something about it.

First, Woods shows why the usual methods don't work. Electing new Senators and Representatives doesn't work because no matter what politicians promise, they always end up caving to special interests. Trying to get the Supreme Court to strike down unconstitutional laws doesn't work, either, because the judicial branch is part of the very federal government we want to restrain, and it's shown again and again that it won't respect the Constitution's (supposed) limits on federal power.

Next, Woods explains the alternative: nullification, whereby individual states can declare unconstitutional laws null and void and prevent their enforcement against the state's citizens.

Although that idea may be new to many readers (most civics teachers, historians, and law professors completely ignore it), Woods shows that it is not new at all. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and many others in the founding era thought nullification was essential to stop the federal government from growing out of control. And Woods shows how nullification has been used at various times in American history to attack oppressive federal laws, including the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Fugitive Slave Act.

Most importantly, Woods shows how nullification can work again today. Some states are already starting to revive it -- for example, California has said no to the federal government (even the Supreme Court!) on the issue of medical marijuana, and many states have said no to the federal REAL ID Act.

The numerous historical documents included with the book prove the importance of nullification in American history and provide additional ammunition you can use to make the case to others.

This isn't a dry work of history or legal theory, though. It's a manual for how we could shrink the federal government to something much closer to what the people who ratified the Constitution intended. That means Tea Partiers, libertarians, and anyone else who is serious about seeking real change -- instead of just playing the same old rigged political game -- should read this book.

One for the Generations, June 28, 2010
Nullification, by Tom Woods, is not just a great read. It's not just a handbook for the Tea Party, or for the opposition groups when the next President is in office. It's a strategy manual for the ages. What we're talking about here is a monumental shift of power, from Washington DC and its corporate backers, to where it belongs - in the hands of the people assembled in their respective states. Woods brilliantly lays out the blueprint - it's just up to We the People to take charge and do something about it.

That's how Jefferson, Madison and most other prominent founders wanted it to be....and our time to take that advice and run with it is now.

Well-reasoned but somewhat incomplete review of one aspect of state's rights, October 14, 2010
Most reviews here discuss the reviewer's belief in the principles of nullification rather than the book, so I will try to stick to the book, the author and the greatest fault in this otherwise extraordinary book, the incomplete contrary arguments.

The author, Thomas Woods, is a respected historian who is also an excellent writer of several other best-selling books including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and other well-known books on American History. He is quite outspoken but does detailed research to support his opinions. You can count on any of his books being accurate, informative and well-reasoned.

This book concerns the idea of nullification of laws that are held to be unconstitutional. The heart of this debate is the age old question of "Who watches the Watchers"? (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?) Or as Lenin put it more elementally "Kto kvo?" - Who does what to whom? How do individuals granted rights by our Creator maintain these rights in Community or Government? Much of this book reviews the Americanist resolution of this question - a limited Government given limited and specified powers.

Woods is at his best tracing and explaining and supporting this concept. He uses so many impeccable sources that it would be hard to support the "living Constitution" school of thought where the Constitution means whatever those in power say it means. I highly recommend reading this short book for a discussion of these ideas.

The book itself is only 145 pages followed by 120 pages of documents to which the book refers. You can read the book in a few hours and then read the documents at leisure. Including many of the entire documents that are being discussed is a great idea and I wish more books would do this. You can see for yourself that Woods is not just picking a quote here or there to justify his views.

Woods argues that the States themselves are one of the major check and balances built into our system in addition to the 3 branches themselves. Woods traces the idea of nullification from the sovereign 13 states to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution and it's ratifying to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. These acts made criticism of the President a crime. Multiple people were fined and imprisoned. The States of Kentucky and Virginia both objected and passed state laws nullifying these Acts because they were unconstitutional. The fact that James Madison, Father of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote these resolutions gives them solid standing.

Woods also does a good job of showing how over the years multiple states have advocated this up to and including California and other states who legalize medical marijuana regardless of what the Federal Government thinks. So this nullification debate is as current as the morning paper, in spite of what a few reviewers here who obviously didn't even read the book claim.

One criticism is that Woods is somewhat incomplete in the occasional contrary information from equally impeccable sources. For example, Patrick Henry made a rousing speech about being an American and not just a Virginian. Benjamin Franklin talked of Americans being a new race of people. The nationalist viewpoint that the states are subordinate units has more support than Woods admits.

The last chapter is about how to apply the idea of nullification to current tyrannical extensions of government power. Where in the Constitution does it say I must buy a "government approved" product (health insurance) or face criminal prosecution? When the government infringes on my right of self-defense in spite of the explicit wording of the Constitution itself in the second amendment that my rights "shall not be infringed", what can I do by myself? Woods says we can organize at the state level and nullify these laws. He spends a few pages explaining how this can be done and how to deal with the federal government that will certainly resist this.

Whether this is a practical solution to government tyranny or not is something you will have to decide for yourself, but this is an important and entertaining book and ought to be read by everyone on both sides of the political spectrum. Four stars.

A fascinating proposal and argument for checking unlimited Federal power, July 19, 2010
While we get precious little serious public debate about our Constitution and the nature of our Federal and State governments anymore, this was not the rule over most of our history. The bumper sticker level of discourse flows from the needs of TV and the way our politicians and their sycophants in the "news" media provide a context that promotes an all powerful central government and treats the states as all but anachronisms we have outgrown and should probably be abolished for efficiency's sake.

Our founders would be aghast. They knew that government is costly, inefficient, and must be held closely accountable or those being given the levers of power would use them to aggrandize their own lusts for power, fame, and money. This is, of course, what we have today; especially in Washington D.C. This is why our founders said things about "governing least" and keeping government close to the people.

Thomas E Woods, Jr. has provided an interesting idea to help us regain a balance of power against the Federal behemoth. When the Progressives, by passing the 17th amendment, turned the Senate over to popular vote instead of appointment by the state legislatures, the senators stopped being ambassadors to for the states in the Federal government to becoming agents for the centralization of power in Washington.

Woods describes the problem and the important history our country has had that a law that is Unconstitutional has not force and is not law. No matter what Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court says. He shows how this played out during the period of the fugitive slave laws and the Dredd Scott decision.

He claims that the States have to regain their status as a check against Federal power. Of course, the Feds have weakened the states by taking so much of the national wealth and holding the states in submission by payments to them that would be withheld if any state decided to reject an initiative from the Federal government. Woods says that states should collect all taxes, deduct what they are owed, and then said the surplus to Washington. I think that this would be better than what we have today, but still doesn't go far enough.

Woods also proposes a Constitutional amendment that would allow a supermajority of states to undo legislation passed by Congress or a ruling of the Supreme Court. Now that, I like. How about you?

He then provides eleven documents and discussions of them that support his reading of history and his argument that we need to have state nullification as a way for states to regain power since there is no way the 17th amendment is going to be repealed (because that would require the Senate to surrender power). A terrific read and I hope more and more of us begin talking about this idea and keep the fires for state power burning so we can corral and tame this Federal giant who is obviously out of control and has no idea how to stop itself or fix the damage it is causing to our liberties and lives.

You might also want to take a look that these wonderful volumes on "The Debate on the Constitution" from the Library of America:

Volume 1:The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification : Part One, September 1787-February 1788 (Library of America)

Volume 2:The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification, Part Two: January to August 1788 (Library of America)

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Saline, MI

The best new book I have read this year., June 30, 2010
"No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid." - Alexander Hamilton.

Tom Woods continues his streak of excellent writing in Nullification. Like almost all of the author's books, Nullification presents a much misunderstand argument at the heart of a very controversial issue. True to his usual form, Tom Woods presents the truth in a clear, understandable and easy to read way that will have the reader unable to put the book down once they pick it up.

Nullification makes its case against the prevailing wisdom and "education" of today which believes nullification was invented by Southern Confederates and was an issue solved by the Civil War. Woods goes through great pains to present the true history of the issue, from the writing of the constitution to examples in modern times. A "must read" for anyone interested in history, politics and government. I plan to re-read this book several times. It is, by far, the most well written and interesting new book I have read this year.

A brilliant essay by Dr. Woods, October 10, 2010
Many reviews have been made on this book already which pretty much cover the scope, the strengths and the weaknesses of the book. I would start out with an analogy of whether one should use a speedboat or an aircraft carrier to repsond to the needs of the people in terms of manueverability. The point is that our government in Washington no longer responds to the local nuances of the needs of communities from such diverse places as Monterey, CA and Ville Platte, LA. It has grown to such garguantuan proportions that it is emeshed in a cauldron of special interests that for the most part cares little for the public at large and functions horribly.

Morever, most of our government is totally without constitutional merit; it relies on "experts" in the courts who "interpret" the law to gives these laws their "OK." It is high time that remedies need to be developed to check the unconstitutional growth of government and Dr. Woods gives us an excellent weapon to rein in goliath government with the idea of nullification.

The books gives an introduction of the "forbidden idea," a history of the nullification movement and examples of its use which included advocates from both North and South despite commonplace diatribes to the contrary. The second half of the book includes original documents covering controversies from the Alien and Sedition Acts to the Fugitive Slave Act which the State of Wisconsin refused to cooperate with the federal government on this score.

The book is relatively brief, but concise with good endnotes, index and an appendix that has the Constitution along with its amendments. A highly recommended book for uncertain times.

A great intellectual tool, July 18, 2010
The book is written in teriffic Tom Woods style, easy to read even with large complex ideas. The History that Woods puts in letters is clear, and attacks attempts to critize nullification. Woods proves the issue is still relevant and is a practical way to take our country back. Please read this book. The issues covered here are larger than policy, it's about the very nature of our government. Lets refuse a national government, and claim the Constitutional Republic that was intended for us. Nullification will empower us, and enrage statist's everywhere. ... Read more

Editorial Review

What new crisis will the federal government manufacture in order to acquire more power over individuals? What new lies will it tell?

Throughout our history, the federal government has lied to send our children off to war, lied to take our money, lied to steal our property, lied to gain our trust, and lied to enhance its power over us. Not only does the government lie to us, we lie to ourselves. We won't admit that each time we let the government get away with misleading us, we are allowing it to increase in size and power and decrease our personal liberty.

In acquiescing to the government's continuous fraudulent behavior, we bear partial responsibility for the erosion of our individual liberties and the ever-expanding federal regulation of private behavior. This book attacks the culture in government that facilitates lying, and it challenges readers to recognize that culture, to confront it, and to be rid of it.

Reviews

Outstanding!, February 17, 2010
Judge Napolitano never ceases to impress me with his knowledge of history and his ability to give you the straight facts. There's no dancing around issues here; Napolitano starts out the book with criticism of one of the move beloved Founding Fathers, George Washington, for his acceptance of slavery (there is praise, too). I mention this because no punches are pulled for the sake of being agreeable; deceit and favoritism are not part of Napolitano's repertoire. This book serves up plenty of criticism for anyone who violates Natural Law or its protection under the Constitution, but that criticism is never generalized as an attack on a political party or group.

Judge Napolitano even attacks a few Constitutional amendments themselves, and particularly calls the 17th amendment is the most "unconstitutional amendment" for violating the separation of powers constructed by the Founding Fathers. Numerous historic court cases and power grabs are cited, and even the more famous examples are presented with rare respect for personal liberty. I appreciated the perspective and found myself learning a lot even about cases I was already familiar with. (Throughout the book, I was saying to my wife, "Did you know this?") The book is thoroughly documented with a long list of references at the end for those wanting to read original cited sources for themselves.

I've read a few books on the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guide To, Who Killed The Constitution, Revolution: A Manifesto to name a few). While usually informative, nobody writes as well nor drills a point home as well as Napolitano. The book keeps a fast pace and focus on the subject of each chapter, with the details of cases presented as necessary without bogging down the central theme or pace. I found this book a pleasure to read. Napolitano has his opinions and doesn't hide them, and for those unfamiliar with "The Judge" he defends the Constitution as envisioned by (most of) the Founding Fathers. He is a great defender of liberty.

It's every bit as good and informative as his show "Freedom Watch" on Fox, which is high praise.

Very informative and thought provoking!, February 24, 2010

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano does not believe that the government is anyone's friend. In his latest book, Lies The Government Told You, he takes his readers on a very informative journey in exposing various lies that he believes Americans have bought into. A little unsettling is Napolitano's warning (on page 295) that his readers should be very careful when reading THIS book, because it could set someone up to be monitored by the government for suspicious behavior.

I can only imagine that if merely reading a book like this makes one a target in the government's eyes, how much more incriminating it must be to WRITE a book like this? The author seems to truly know his stuff so I'm sure he thought long and hard before putting himself out there and exposing this information. If you're not into politics then this book might not hold your interest. It's a pretty deep read with tons of facts and information.

The author writes about seventeen lies, one of them being "all men are created equal." American history buffs will already be well aware that four out of the first five American Presidents (George Washington included) owned slaves. However, what about the The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment which gives the government the right to take away private property for "public use"? This includes YOUR home, even if you've paid it off.

What about Populism and Progessivism? When did these views develop and how have they affected our current government?

Why is FEMA so disorganized and chaotic? And why are they still allowed to operate, though FEMA has proven to be unprepared and severely lacking in disaster response?

What about the $40 billion dollars a year taken from American taxpayers and used to foot the bill for the war on drugs? In the midst of a failing economy, why are Americans forced to continue to pay for these types of ineffective programs?

Lie #12 is "Everyone Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty". Napolitano shows example after example of how the government has wrongly accused, convicted and imprisoned innocent Americans and gotten away with it.

Not only does the author cover historical events like the founding of our country and Pearl Harbor - he also addresses current events like the General Motors bailout, comparing it to the near failure of Amtrak in 1971.

Interesting, thought provoking and definitely for those who agree with Napolitano's view of the government.

The Amazing Judge, February 16, 2010
Andrew Napolitano's latest book is just what Republican conservatives and Tea Partiers need to read, to arm them against the federal government's lies. It's a wonderful gift for a young person too. As on FOX, the Judge's deep knowledge of the Constitution and American history are joined to great story-telling, with the moral Americans need to hear about the real nature of the US government. And the introduction is by Ron Paul. Read this book!

Outstanding Read!!, March 12, 2010
I first saw Napolitano on Glenn Beck and was intrigued by the title. What I have grown to love about him and this book is that he is bi-partisan. He is very direct and holds nothing back while exposing lies told by the government. He breaks them out very well and floods you with information to back up each claim. He encourages us to seek out thosue sources ourselves as well. This is something I firmly believe in. Not taking what others say as truth, seek out the information yourself.


Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their [...] book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255

Should Be Required Reading For All Americans..., March 4, 2010
Judge Andrew Napolitano has put into writing what many of us have long suspected...our government has been lying to use for years about almost everything it has ever done. If you think our government is crooked and power hungry, you will realize just how crooked it is when you read this book. Lies The Government Told You is scary as hell to be truthful. I didn't find a single thing that I disagreed with. It's almost unbelievable how far our Nation has moved from the Constitution.

While I don't watch much news anymore (I find most so called "journalists" to be either too frightened or too stupid to ask real questions that actually matter) I see enough to keep up with the major stories. I was glad to see Napolitano mention the failure of the national media as well in the book. This book will really open your eyes to how broken our government is, not just because it's virtually bankrupt, but because it fails to uphold the constitution and protect the very citizens that fund it. You will also learn that the Federal Reserve isn't a "federal" entity. It's a private corporation that controls all our money with little or no oversight. There used to be a joke that if Alan Greenspan happened to comment how nasty a rainy day was, the stock market would drop fifty points. It doesn't sound far-fetched when you realize how much power the Federal Reserve actually has.

I wold love to see this book as required reading in any government class. It truly does open your mind to the countless ways we as citizens have failed to protect our own freedoms by allowing such actions to occur time and time again. If you can still vote for most politicians after reading this, I can only hope they have also read the book. All Americans should be both shocked and ashamed at our government for these lies. We should remember these actions the next time we vote, though another big problem is the lack of choices on the ballot. Let's be honest, how many times have you voted for the lesser of two evils?

I highly recommend this book for everyone. If millions read it and understand how far we have fallen, maybe there is still hope that we can get our government and our constitutional rights back.

Way to stand for the truth!, February 28, 2010
Most of us know that the government lies to us...and most people just accept it.
But should we?
Should we go along like sheep allowing them to tell us what to do, despite their breaking this country's laws themselves?
Do you honestly know how much they corrupt the truth to get what they want from us...to deceive us?

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, is a wonderful author and leader in our country, who respect's the Constitution and understands first hand how the American government is supposed to be, but unfortunately is not.
The government today is anything but a friend on our side.

This eye-opening book, 'Lies the Government Told You', goes through in depth detail of 17 of the biggest untruths the leaders of this nation would like us to believe. He dives hard into the subjects telling us what they should be and what they aren't today, like the Right to Bear Arms, the Federal Reserve, FEMA, every vote counts, and even how everyone is not innocent until proven guilty in our government's eyes.

Using many modern legal cases and historic events to prove his points, Judge Napolitano really knows how to voice the truth and expose the wickedness in today's politics.
For example, did you know that the government has the right to take away your property for "public use" no matter what you want...even if that "public use" is just to widen their political pockets, and make us pay taxes on something that is supposedly for our benefit?
Did you know that the Federal Reserve has nothing Federal about it, but is just a small group of elite bankers (like Rockerfeller, J.P. Morgan, etc.) who print monopoly money just to charge interest on this paper that has no real value to back any of it? All to deepen their own wealth of course, while our economy slips slowly into depression.
Did you realize the government wants to disarm us by putting so many stipulations on the 2nd Amendment? Why? Why should we let tyranny rule us, especially when they will have all the weapons to keep us under control while we won't be able to fight back?

Is this what our founding Fathers wanted for America?

'Lies the Government Told You' is a must read for anyone who wants to know the truth about America and how we can change it for the better. Be prepared when you read this enlightening book...prepared to be angry, and prepared to stand up and take back our government.

We the People.
We the States.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson
(Thank you Thomas Nelson Publishers for providing me with this copy to review.)

The Judge Does It Again, February 23, 2010
Once again Judge Napolitano has written a book for all Americans. His depth and breadth of knowledge is again evident. He does not pull punches. If someone has done something admirable, he says so. If they have done something despicable, he says that, too. He is not pro-Republican or pro-Democrat...he IS one of the most pro-Constitution people I have ever read. There is no doubt that he loves this country. He leaves us with no doubt that this country is not what we believe it is nor is it what it was intended to be. He reminds us of the most frightening words we can hear..."I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." (R. Reagan), and I would add another set..."I'm from the government, and I'll protect you." If we are to remain the land of the free, or more accurately, reclaim that status, we would do well to read this book and take action on Judge Napolitano's recommendations.

My suggestion to all Americans is simple...read the Constitution of the United States of America! Re-read the Constitution, commit the words to your mind and heart. Live (and vote) with those words etched into your mind and heart. After you have read the Constitution, read the works of Judge Napolitano. He writes in specifics, not generalities. Read "The 5000 Year Leap" to discover the wonder of the our constitution.

Knowledge is power...this book WILL increase your knowledge!

Necessary Tension, March 11, 2010
There is supposed to be a tension between the government and the people.

I worded it that way on purpose, there is no "it's people" with the government of the United States. There is supposed to be a tension between the government of the United States of America and the citizens of the United States of America.

The United States of America is unique in that respect among nations. While all governments are responsible and accountable for their actions for and on behalf of their citizens, the United States of America is unique among nations in that, at least in the founding documents and according to common belief, it affirms that accountability and responsibility.

The government of the United States of America has traveled far from it's original constitutional moorings, and it is important that We the people not forget the correct alignment of the spheres of responsibility in a worthwhile culture.

I don't follow some of Judge Andrew Napolitano's ideas and philosophies, but my disagreements are more in details than in nature and essence, and in principle there is truly little I can disagree with.

It is a sad thing when even people who firmly believe in the original intent and the founding essence of the United States of America feel sick when they recognize the truth of where we are versus where we believed, hoped, and honestly thought we were.

And it is a good thing when someone stands up and courageously tells the truth without pulling punches.

Lies the Government Told You should be required reading before election day, before tax day, anytime we hear "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

The tension between We the People of the United States of America and the government of the United States of America is necessary and the superior strength and push should always come from We the People because the government attracts to itself people with the lust to dominate.

And it's the power and pressure of the people who are the first, the last, and the only bulwark against the tyrants, petty and powerful, soft tongued and flagrant.

So purchase Judge Andrew Napolitano's book Lies the Government Told You, and let's put the government of the United States of America back in it's place, back on it's heels, back on it's butt, back on it's back, until its submission to We the People is total and complete.

Lies the Government Told You, March 17, 2010
The subtitle for the book is "Myth, Power, and Deception in American History", and with that subtitle you would think the book should be stashed away with the conspiracy theory books in the back of your local book store. However, that is not the case with Lies the Government Told You.

The book has listed in it, 17 "lies" told to us by our government, and goes into great detail in each of those chapters in explaining where the lie comes from, how it has been misinterpreted, how the media presents it, and the author, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano's take on the matter.

The lies that we have been told range from rights that have been granted to us in the constitution (all men are created equal), to political media slogans (the war on drugs), and even has a chapter devoted to one of the best satirical quotes from a U. S. President I have ever heard, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

Keeping with the book's tradition, I won't lie to you. The book takes a while to read, and can sometimes get confusing, especially to an average Joe like myself, but the author does try to keep things simple and intelligible. Some of the chapters made my blood boil when I began to think real hard on the subject, and many times I put the book back down as quickly as I picked it up! But, I am glad I had the chance to read it. It has opened up my eyes in more ways than one, and raised my blood pressure to boot.

Lies The Government Told You, March 4, 2010
Lies The Government Told You by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Judge Napolitano does a great job of interweaving various points from the United States Constitution,lawsuits and past and present happenings. He shows us the many ways that our government has lied to us and let various opinions take precedence over the original intention of our constituiion.
This book will really open your eyes to so many wrongs that have occured over the years and continue to be in effect today. There is much that will be shared with you about how various groups have gained power over our govenment and are doing so by lies that too many of us are willing to listen to and believe to the detriment of our country. This really isn't a partisan book, both major parties have done things over the years that need to be studied and learned from so that we can make better choices in who we elect to government office.
Everyone who has an interest in our Constituion and what it means, needs to read this book and learn from the writing of Judge Napolitano.

I received this book from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their [...] bloggers book review program. The opinions expressed are my own. I was not required to write a positive review. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255 "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising." ... Read more

Editorial Review

Written by leading scholars, each title in the "Introduction to Law" series contains comprehensive treatment in black-letter style.Featuring footnotes citing to case law, statutory and other authorities, these volumes are ideal for in-depth research on particular issues and points of law. ... Read more

Reviews

Really understand Con Law (and help your grade, too), April 24, 2003
A central problem with teaching law by the casebook method is that most students also need a clear, expert roadmap of how the cases fit together, and how a particular doctrine that emerges from a line of cases -- sometimes over a century or more -- has evolved, changed, and operates today. Outlines of the black letter law (e.g. Gilberts) aren't as useful for something doctrinal like con law. You want clear exposition in prose. You want concise descriptions of all the important cases and what they stand for. You want Chemerinsky.

All con law students should be grateful that one of the nation's leading Constitutional practitioners and professors has written this book. Its size is intimidating, but that's because it covers far more territory than the typical intro con law class. It's so well-done, though, that it's something serious students and lawyers will want on their bookshelves long after the first year -- as a supplement for advanced-topics classes, and as an essential reference work.

The book is well-organized in an outline format with headings and subheads, so you can easily follow the thread of complex doctrine over time, like the Commerce Clause, or across its varied applications, like Equal Protection. Chapters are thorough but well divided. The organization allows you to find exactly what you need and to zero in on a particular narrow point or case, or to read more expansively about a doctrine's development, change, and varied application. Chemerinsky's prose is neutral, straightforward, always clear. He's analytical but doesn't make arguments. You couldn't say his writing has personality, but it is quite readable.

This book is the con law supplement of choice at my school (Michigan). No one I know has regretted buying it.

The most valuable study aide of ALL TIME, October 19, 2004
This is probably the best money I spent my first year of law school. I am still using this book for Con Law II in my second year of school, and it is still just as invaluable to me. For Constitutional Law, canned briefs like legal lines do you no good. You need someone to spell out the principles and the analysis. No one does this as well as Chemerinsky. I could probably name at least 10 other students at school who ordered this book after they saw my copy. My text book for Constitutional Law is a piece of crap, and I would not learn anything if it were not for Chemerinsky. I have a different teacher for my second semester of Con Law, and he teaches verbatim from this book. My first Con Law professor was so impressed from a comment I made in class through something I had read in Chemerinsky that she came up to me after class and thanked me for helping further the class discussion. She was so impressed that I didn't want to tell her I was a fraud! I credit my final grade for Con Law I to Chemerinsky as well.

I know the price for this study aide is a little higher than some of the others, but you will get to use it for at least two semesters. I also heard it is helpful if you take a class on the First Amendment.

Other study aides I bought were barely opened. This one was read more than my text book!

(I never bother to write reviews. That is how pleased I am with how much this book helped me.)

There is none better, November 25, 1999
I am a law student and used Mr. Chemerinsky's book during my studies in Constitutional law and for some time now after my classes in this field. This is better than any text book and was recommended by EVERY professor of Constitutional law at my school. It is an awesome book on almost everything you wanted to know about Constitutional law.

Con Law is suddenly clear to me now!, February 9, 2003
My Con Law prof is using Sullivan's "Constitutional Law" (14th Ed., University Casebook Series) as our textbook, and our entire class is overwhelmed by both the concepts and the density of the reading (it takes four hours to read 25 pages!).

Then I picked up this book by Chemerinksy, which recommended by our professor. It's /amazing/. We're working on the dormant commerce clause, and Chemerinsky sets out everything incredibly clearly, citing cases (rather than including the entire case itself) and setting out black letter law in an explanation of the Court's rulings. Everything is much easier to understand, and it's much easier to pick out the important issues in the textbook when I read the next assignment. I recommend reading Chemerinsky first, and the textbook second, so the rules pop out at you more readily.

An excellent guide to Con law, March 24, 2006
Chemerinsky has done a fine job of connecting the dots and making the ever-evolvong doctrines of American Constitutional jurisprudence understandable. The major weakness with most Con law books is that in focusing on individual cases, the student will often embroil himself or herself in the minutiae of individual cases while losing sight of the bigger picture. The glaring weakness of most commercial outlines is that the pendulum swings too far in the other direction; instead of focuing on individual cases, outlines give the bigger picture without providing enough context and specific information to truly inform the reader. That being said, Chemerinsky has found the perfect balance and his work suffers from neither of the aforementioned flaws. In the words of Goldilocks, Chemerinsky's treatment of Constitutional law is "just right."

Prof. Chemerisnky classifies the subject matter in this book according to general topics that any Con law student will recognize as the subject matter of a general Con law course. Yet, instead of of just providing a distilled outline analysis, Chemerinsky details a case-by-case analysis under each general topical heading and describes the major points and importance of the cases in a few paragraphs. Prof. Chemerinsky's case descriptions and analysis is extremely helpful and highlightss the most important and vital doctrines of the cases as it relates to the general topic being covered. These descriptions serve as a helpful supplement whne actually reading the cases themselves. Moreover, Chemerinsky masterfully ties all the applicable cases together and provides his own enlightening summary of how all the case law interacts so that the reader can understand where the law stands, and where the contours and lines have been drawn. Finally, Chemerinsky does a fine job of providing neutral and non-partisan analysis that focuses on the state of the law, and not intellectual prose arguing where he thinks the law should be. I would highly recommend this book to any Con Law student (as a great way to study and prepare for an exam), and to any general reader who desires to gain a deeper and more nuanced understanding of Constitutional jurisprudence.

Excellent - readable, comprehensive, and detailed!, March 3, 2005
I knew this was a good supplement when I read the section detailing US v. Nixon in the executive powers chapter and then my prof's lecture the next day was almost identical. I wondered if she was reading this book too. There is plenty of good explanations on the historical trends of the commerce clause, judicial powers, executive powers, the most important amendements, and many more.

The only section lacking is in the executive detention powers because a couple of cases have come up since 2002 with regard to the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, this is the only content that this book is lacking. This con-law supplement is more up to date and accurate than most others I've seen.

I can say that this book is very detailed, it has an independent discussion on each significant constitutional case as well as topical discussions and explanations of the political history leading up to and in between the cases.

Highly recommended for any constitutional law class!

Clear and comprehensive, May 9, 2005
This is one of five books that I think every law student should read, the other four being Joseph Glannon's Civil Procedure, Marvin Chirelstein's Contracts, Eugene Volokh's Academic Legal Writing, and Bryan Gardner's Elements of Legal Style (or the Winning Brief).

While it lacks the humor of Glannon, the incisive legal analysis of Chirelstein, the comprehensiveness of Volokh and the pragmatic skills teaching of Gardner, it is just as indispensible for amalgamating the complicated and arcane case lineages in Constitutional law into an easy to understand framework. And it is readable, unlike so many of its ilk. Perhaps most importantly, you don't have to feel embarrassed about raising a question that you came across in this book with one of your professors. (Naming no names: Gilberts.)

Get it. It's Glannon for Con Law.

Just as good as the previous edition, November 12, 2006
This adds a lot of material that has been covered by the Supreme Court in the interim period between the current publication and that of the second edition (2002). All of the praise from the prior edition can be properly bestowed upon this one as well; it essentially consists of the same material with the new cases inserted. Also, prior language that mused about the direction that a particular issue would take in the coming years have been resolved in some instances, so those parts have been replaced with Chemerinsky's excellent chronological and ideological thread of cases, up to the end of the last Court session. This book, more clearly than most, gives the average (and below-average) law student an easy-to-follow guide through the maze that is the first year Constitutional law course. A great help, and a necessary purchase.

Fantastic guide to Con Law, October 9, 2006
I have only the highest praise for Prof. Chemerinsky's Con Law book. Constitutional Law may be the most difficult and abstract course in law school, and this is partially due to casebook treatment of the subject. In Con Law, the philosophical differences between Supreme Court justices are a clear influence on the case holdings. Since philosophical trends change as the Court changes, this force produces theoretical undercurrents which are not adequately covered in the casebook. This book dramatically reduces ambiguities in holdings and treatments by offering good discussion of these philosophical currents within the Court as a supplement to the legal concepts (with historical and political perspective added as well).

One specific example is Chapter 4 - limits of the executive power. With much of the furor over unchecked presidential authority (e.g., Guantanamo) as an important legal, moral and political question for our times, the book presciently points out that the Supreme Court has largely given the President wide latitude to conduct foreign affairs, and that future intervention is unlikely under the doctrine of "political question." To the extent that President Bush states that he has the power to do such things (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing here), the book provides some framework for evaluating his claim to power in this very nebulous area. Although this book did not specifically address the Due Process or Geneva Convention questions in that discussion (which formed the basis of the recent ruling against the administration), the book provides a very good broad framework for legal analysis, whether you agree or disagree with the political and moral implications.

The book seems very good at "connecting the dots" and broadening the discussion beyond individual cases. Well done.

There aren't many times when I think that a particular supplement is "vital" to understanding a course, but this is one such case. While I cannot say that I've seen every other supplement (of course), I don't see a reason to look further than this one.

A must read for all law students and all Americans, November 3, 2005
If you are at all confused during an introductory Constitutional Law course, you need this book. It boils down constitutional theory and doctrine into easily digested concepts. It is a bit long, but it is worth the read, and often can be read in lieu of the actual cases.... but I don't recommend this approach. It is a bit outdated, but I'm sure Chemerinsky will put out a new edition soon. Even if he doesn't, get this book anyway. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Erwin Chemerinsky's distinctive and brilliant approach has found a wide audience of admirers who enjoy teaching from a combination of carefully selected and edited case excerpts and stunningly lucid and elucidating exposition.

Updated throughout, the revised Third Edition features

• comprehensive coverage in a manageably teachable length
• flexible organization that offers modular, free-standing chapters to adapt to a variety of teaching objectives
• highly effective pedagogical approach that combines case excerpts with clear and expansive exposition
• context and background information in the text that connects constitutional principles and seminal cases to history and contemporary issues
• brilliant yet approachable writing
• a detailed Teacher's Manual*

Nationally recognized as a foremost pedagogue and expert in the field, Erwin Chemerinsky does not disappoint with his Constitutional Law casebook. Take a look at the streamlined and updated Third Edition. If you aren't teaching with it already, this may be the year to switch. ... Read more

Reviews

con law, September 15, 2010
Could Chemerinsky have written a bigger and heavier book (probably). Coming from a person that hated their first con law class, for my second con law class that focuses on civil rights, this book actually does a great job of prefacing cases and pointing out the important factors before throwing you into the case.

Great Condition and very fast delivery, December 21, 2010
The book came in excellent condition and I actually received it a few days after I purchased it. I would buy books from this person again.

Quick shipment, October 20, 2010
Quick shipment - book isn't in as great of condition as I expected (more highlighting than expected) but it's used and it was cheaper than buying a brand new one so thanks!

bad service, September 17, 2010
Seller never responded back to my email regarding a return policy and does not have one. Now im stuck with a book that did not come in time. Would never order again form an individual.

Wrong book and still no refund!, October 2, 2010
DO NOT buy from this seller!! They sent the outdated version of the textbook requested. I returned the incorrect item and still waiting for a response and/or credit! What a joke!!Constitutional Law

politics, January 7, 2010
Book came quickly. It was in the exact condition that was stated on the website. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The dissenting opinions of Patrick Henry and others who saw the Constitution as a threat to our hard-won rights and liberties.

Edited and introduced by Ralph Ketcham. ... Read more

Reviews

The political background of the birth of our Constitution, June 22, 2003
I highly recommend "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates" along with the companion volume "The Federalist Papers." Reading these two books will give you both sides of the arguments that revolved around the creation and adoption of our Constitutional government. "The Anit-Federalist Papers.." contains an excellent introduction by Ralph Ketcham, the complete Anti-Federalist papers and Constitutional Convention Debates with commentaries, an Index of Ideas, and cross-references to "The Federalist Papers."

The original intent of the Convention of States was to simply amend the Articles of Confederation, but instead it set out to frame an entirely new constitution. The Conventional debates began on May 29, 1787, in Philadelphia, with the "Virginia Plan" as the topic of the debates. This was James Madison's plan to strengthen the national government. However, not all our founding fathers wanted a centralized government. Statesmen such as Patrick Henry and John DeWitt argued for a decentralized government with a minimal central government. These men saw that the government as depicted in the Constitution would not represent the people adequately and that rights and liberties recently won from England would be lost.

This book is a must-read for anyone who wants to learn about the political thought which shaped our Constitution.

Powerful and passionate prose that will inspire you!, April 6, 1999
These often intense and firey speeches made by the Anti-Federalists or the detractors of the Constitution (as it was being written and then debated) are powerful, passionate and sharp enough to make one feel these words were meant to be weapons, i.e., the front line defense of the freedom and liberty we so easily take for granted today. I feel that much of what is wrong in our political system today was predicted here, and what would constitute the only real solution, i.e., active, democratic citizenship, is also demonstrated here in their willingness to fight against tyranny with reason and passion. How much greater our public debates would be today if this were required reading for all citizens! "Politics" would be thought well of again and refer to what citizens do in noble service to communities, close to home and far away. Do yourself a favor, get inspired again as to the original principles and purpose of democracy, read this book, and believe again! And do something!

Great But Incomplete, March 4, 2007
Everyone is probably familiar with what the Anti-Federalist papers are, and the other reviews do a great job of explaining this aspect for those who aren't, so there is no great need to do it again. Needless to say, familiarity with the basic Anti-Federalist arguments and their general themes is essential to understanding the foundation from which the Constitution arose and the twists its historical development would undertake. Believe it or not, but strains of Anti-Federalism are apparent even in today's politics, like the arguments for state power found in debates about topics like abortion or gay-marriage.

The biggest question to ask before buying this book, then, isn't why the information is important, but why you should pay money for something that can be found for free online. There are several reasons, for which I give this edition 4 stars:

First, it is an accompaniment to the Signet Classics edition of the Federalist Papers, and has a variety of cross-references to it. If you have both, it makes the search for certain topics and both sides' arguments in its regard much easier.

Second, it has a great introduction. The problem with approaching the Anti-Federalists without any editorial priming beforehand (whether from an introduction, a class, or both) is that one becomes liable to think of the group as nothing but a rag-tag group of guys with as many different opinions as there are men professing them, whose only point of unity is their opposition to Federalism. Their negative name--the "Anti-"Federalists--implies this, after all, and Madison himself tries to play off this point in one of his papers. The masterful introduction tries to prevent this, by expounding on the fundamental, unifying vision of the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, and exactly how the two differed.

Lastly, there is a variety of tables of ideas that make finding specific points of opposition to specific topics that much easier.

For these three reasons, on top of the simple fact that it groups together all the scattered Anti-Federalist essays (making it more likely that you will actually read them), I believe this book is worth the $8 that it costs today.

It does have some issues, however. First, the paper quality is the same as of the Federalist Papers edition I reviewed before, with the same associated defect of leaving ink blotches behind on your finger. For some reason, it actually leaves less ink than the Federalist Papers, but the pulpy texture is still unpleasant. Second, and most important, is the relatively sparsity of the essays included. As it is, if you take a class that touches on this topic, you will invariably end up having to find several essays online that were not included into this edition. There presently seems to be no medium alternative between buying a sparse edition like this and a full anthology that can cost into the thousands of dollars, however, so you're not likely to find anything better.

Biased edition, November 15, 2001
The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers contain the arguments and debate that surrounded the creation of the federal government. The Federalist Papers argue for a strong, centralized federal government. The Anti-Federalist Papers argue for decentralized government, with only the minimal central government necessary - a confederation - to provide for the common interests of the States without becoming a monarchy or dictatorship. It's good to read both sides. Those who feel the U.S. federal government has become too big and too intrusive may be surprised to find themselves more aligned with the Anti-Federalist Papers.

However, I would not recommend this edition. The editor is clearly Federalist. For example, his bias can be found at the bottom of page 214, where he inserts the comment "[Here Mr. Henry strongly and pathetically expatiated on the probability of the President's enslaving America and the horrible consequences that must result.]" Strongly? Pathetically? Expatiated? These are pretty strong words, certainly not the words of an unbiased historian. The "Mr. Henry" he is referring to is Patrick Henry, one of our nation's greatest patriots. The comment is inserted in the middle of one of Patrick Henry's speeches. The editor's bias casts doubt on the analysis, comments, historical reference, and background information he has inserted throughout the book, ostensibly to provide a frame of reference for better understanding the actual documents. If the frame of reference is tilted, your understanding risks being tilted.

Read the Anti-Federalist papers, by all means. But get an edition with no bias, or a bias in favor of the anti-federalist viewpoint.

The Anti-Federalist Papers, September 3, 2002
The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutuional Convention Debates edited by Ralph Ketcham is the counter to the Federalist Papers we know so much about. Yes, debate was strong as were the opinions expressed by the people between 1765 and 1787, as nothing was certain and the fledgling United States of America was going through dissenting opinions and concepts to ensure that the threats to the rights and liberties that were recently won from England were not thrown to the wind.

To get a better knowledge of what was going on at that time in our history we need to read about what was really going on and how was the political climate. Reading the "Federalist Papers" will not give you a complete picture, a good start, yes, but the concept of a strong central government was looked upon as an infringement of individual and states rights. The constitutions ws looked upon, by some, as a threat. Thus, this volume, of dissenting opinions, is valuable to balance the thought process.

Patrick Henry and John DeWitt are but two of these men who had a different concept of what a federal govenment should be, as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Madison was primary in the consept of compromise or composite, partly national is that some powers impinged directly on the people (taxing power) and partly national as the states acted as "units" of a central government. This early on would be the ground work for dual-sovereignty, but with carefully laid out laws.

This book cross-references to the "Federalist Paper" making his an excellent book for the novice reader. Also, there are complete texts of the Anti-Federalist papers and Constitutional Convention Debates complete with commentaries and an Index of Ideas making the olume invaluable to anyone interested in political thought in action. As political independence required new mode of thinking, the United States became a hotbed of political thought about government. Thus, the next step was national indetity and to accomplish this they had to have a national government acting as one, a union and confederated government. As the debate flurished, giving rise to pamphlets, newspaper articles and other writings on questions of a representative government, eventually a quest for freer and more democratic government persisted.

This book has quite a lot of informantion in it and along with other readings makes the reader better prepared to underdstand as to why things are as they are, with respect to the Constitution of the United States, the oldest still-in-use.

Great book, April 13, 2009
Even though, I am in support of the Federalists, this is a very interesting book that makes some legitimate (and some not-so legitimate arguments). If you read "The Federalist Papers" in addition to this book, you'll get a very real taste of the fight that went on to create our country as it is today.

A lot of history in here, May 6, 2007
So many people today talk about the wisdom of the founding fathers and how they would have believed in this or that. Well, read it for yourself in the founding father's own words - it's all in here, and just as important today as it was over 200 years ago.

Essential American Reader, March 14, 2010
I purchased this along with the Federalist Papers. I had read the F.P. in it's entirety, but I hadn't been aware of the vast gulf between various founders over the best government for America.

The Anti-Federalist Papers contain the writings (and speeches) of some of the greatest heroes on the Revolution including Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry, and some who will forever be known only by their pseudonym.

These writers were concerned about the danger inherent in the centralized power of a federal ("efficient") government. These dangers have been shown in the last 140 years as the federal government increasingly enforces its power - seat belt laws, alcohol limits, anti-gun laws. All these patriots would have been horrified by the excesses of our federal state.

And yet, some of the centralized, efficient government has made us great and is an essential part of who we are. The standing army that they excoriated (with their memories of the Hessians et al.), is a necessary part of our survival in an increasingly dangerous world.

Be sure you read these papers, too, as you contemplate our history and our future.

The Origin of our Bill of Rights, January 6, 2008
"The Anti-Federalist Papers" along with the "Federalist Papers" is an excellent way to really learn about how our Constitution came about. Pseudonyms like The Centinel, The Pennsylvania Farmer, John DeWitt, Cato, et.al. set forth the cons against why various provisions of our Constitution should be viewed with great suspicion, and they offered counter proposals to safeguard our freedoms from ultimate despotism. I haven't read all the papers as I am also studying the Federalist Papers along with this book; but I am finding that many of the warnings the Anti-Federalists expressed have either come true or have come a long way toward becoming true.

I surely recommend purchasing this book if you want to learn the truth behind the reasons for our Constitution being as it is, and if you want to finally understand this very important basis for our government.

Time For A Change America, August 2, 2009
With The Current Situation Our Government Has Caused and Continues To Do Without The American People's Approval, This Is A Must Read On How We Can Change Things and Take Our Government Back. The Constitution States, "We The People...", NOT "We The Government". ... Read more

Editorial Review

Over the last few decades, the Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts have undergone a dramatic shift to the right, the result of a determined effort by right-wing lawmakers and presidents to reinterpret the Constitution by reshaping the judiciary. Conservative activist justices have narrowed the scope of the Constitution, denying its protections to millions of Americans, exactly as the lawmakers who appointed and confirmed these jurists intended. Basic long-standing principles of constitutional law have been overturned by the Rehnquist and Roberts courts. As distinguished law professor and constitutional expert Erwin Chemerinsky demonstrates in this invaluable book, these changes affect the lives of every American.

As a result of political pressure from conservatives and a series of Supreme Court decisions, our public schools are increasingly separate and unequal, to the great disadvantage of poor and minority students. Right-wing politicians and justices are dismantling the wall separating church and state, allowing ever greater government support for religion. With the blessing of the Supreme Court, absurdly harsh sentences are being handed down to criminal defendants, such as life sentences for shoplifting and other petty offenses. Even in death penalty cases, defendants are being denied the right to competent counsel at trial, and as a result innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to death. Right-wing politicians complain that government is too big and intrusive while at the same time they are only too happy to insert the government into the most intimate aspects of the private lives of citizens when doing so conforms to conservative morality. Conservative activist judges say that the Constitution gives people an inherent right to own firearms but not to make their own medical decisions. In some states it is easier to buy an assault rifle than to obtain an abortion.

Nowhere has the conservative assault on the Constitution been more visible or more successful than in redefining the role of the president. From Richard Nixon to George W. Bush, conservatives have sought to significantly increase presidential power. The result in recent years has been unprecedented abuses, including indefinite detentions, illegal surveillance, and torture of innocent people.

Finally, access to the courts is being restricted by new rulings that deny legal protections to ordinary Americans. Fewer lawsuits alleging discrimination in employment are heard; fewer people are able to sue corporations or governments for injuries they have suffered; and even when these cases do go to trial, new restrictions limit damages that plaintiffs can collect.

The first step in reclaiming the protections of the Constitution, says Chemerinsky, is to recognize that right-wing justices are imposing their personal prejudices, not making neutral decisions about the scope of the Constitution, as they claim, or following the "original meaning" of the Constitution. Only then do we stand a chance of reclaiming our constitutional liberties from a rigid ideological campaign that has transformed our courts and our laws. Only then can we return to a constitutional law that advances freedom and equality. ... Read more

Reviews

A fascinating and depressing read, December 1, 2010
The author leads the reader through case after case, often quoting from both the majority and dissenting opinions, showing how the court arrived at Roe vs. Wade, for instance, and how subsequent Courts have worked to erode and limit a woman's rights since it was decided.
That's just one example. He takes separation of church and state, habeas corpus rights and personal privacy and gives a historical account of each, showing how the increasingly conservative court, while decrying "judicial activism," has actually been consistently activist on issues that involved conservative ideology, overturning previous decisions with abandon, while claiming smugly that they are respectful of previous decisions.
The most damning point he makes is the two-faced posture of the Gang of Four(Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas). On the one hand they pretend to be strict constructionists, limiting individual's rights to those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments. For example, they ruled against a victim of police negligence whose children were murdered by an ex-spouse after she asked for protection and the cops didn't bother to take any action, saying that the Constitution does not guarantee police competence (or words to that effect) but they were adamant in the recent ruling that corporations have the rights of individuals as far as campaign spending is concerned...clearly not a "right" explicitly granted in the Constitution. Ideology trumps principles with these guys. Real hypocrites!
This is a very dense book, and the reader must have an interest in the details of case law and legal precedents to stay with it. I recommend it highly to anyone with those interests.

Illuminating and informative, November 3, 2010
This book explains in plain English how Supreme Court decisions affect the lives of all Americans. Chemerinsky writes the story of how the decisions made by Presidents regarding whom to appoint to the Court ripple throughout decades. Conservatives will probably disagree with Chemerinsky's judgments about what the Court has done as it shifted to the right, but they should also find it interesting to learn how the Court shifted right and what it might mean for the future.

I believe the most important aspect of the book is how clearly Chemerinsky is able to demonstrate that there really is no one way interpret the Constitution. Put on talk radio today and you are sure to hear something like "if you believe in the Constitution, we have to do x y z." But a belief in the Constitution does not dictate obvious policy choices. Instead, the Constitution is written in often vague and broad language that does not answer a specific fact scenario. For example, the First Amendment does not mention anything about prayer in schools, but mentions that government should not establish religion. The Supreme Court decides whether or not the establishment clause prohibits prayer in schools, and really the answer is not obvious. Many of the most important Supreme Court decisions are decided by a 5-4 vote. This means that 4 of the most educated, intelligent, and informed legal minds in the country, obviously experts on Constitutional law, thought the other 5 justices were misinterpreting the Constitution. But from that moment on, the 5 Justices have the correct interpretation, and the 4 Justices the incorrect.

Constitutional law greatly impacts our lives. It dictates how schools are taught, what the police can and cannot search, the rights of criminal defendants, whether or not a woman can receive an abortion and under what circumstances, etc. You will enjoy this book if you are interested to learn about how the Supreme Court develops the law and how conservative policies are shaping the meaning of the Constitution.

A classic analysis, December 2, 2010
This is a clear and lucid analysis of the effects that Republican presidential appointments have had on the philosophy of the U.S. Supreme Court, and how that philosophy effects all americans. Suitable for reading by lawyer and non-lawyer alike, Professor Chemerinsky has provided a calm and enlightened description of how the law of the land has been changed by conservative ideology over the last forty years.

As if he's talking with you, November 10, 2010
Erwin Chemerinsky writes in a way that makes it feel as if he's talking with you, as if he anticipates what the reader wants to know next. His passion for the Constitution and his in depth knowledge of so many areas comes together in a way that is seamless. Even if you don't agree with his ultimate conclusions, he develops and hones in on the critical issues of today and balances that with the historical Constitutional perspective.

A Constitutional Requirement to Read, December 21, 2010
The Conservative Assault on the Constitution by Erwin Chemerinsky

The Conservative Assault on the Constitution is a must read book for anyone who cares about the application of the Constitution. And who better to educate us on it than distinguished law professor and constitutional expert Erwin Chemerinsky? Mr. Chemerinsky takes us through a series of the most interesting legal issues of our time and the impact that the composition of the Supreme Court has on such legal decisions. Fascinating book indeed even to a person like me who is most inclined to reading books about science or religion. The book is composed of the following six chapters: Separate and Unequal Schools, The Imperious Presidency, Dismantling the Wall Separating Church and State, The Vanishing Rights of Criminal Defendants, The Erosion of Individual Liberties and the Closing of the Courthouse Doors. It also includes a conclusion and an incisive introduction.

Positives:
1. A well written, clearly laid out book that shows how Supreme Court decisions impact our lives.
2. Constitutional law in plain English by a distinguished lawyer.
3. This book was a treat to read from cover to cover.
4. Every conceivable important legal issue was covered in this book.
5. One of the most important decisions a President has to make is the appointment of Supreme Court Judges. A point that is clearly made with luxury of details. As an example, President Nixon had four vacancies to fill by contrast President Carter had none. Such decisions leave a permanent mark in our history.
6. Great history on the selection of various Judges and how their voting record actually turned out versus the original perception. Examples of the aforementioned include Justices Souter and O'Connor.
7. A great lesson on how our schools are in fact separate and unequal.
8. My favorite chapter has to do with the dismantling of the wall of separation of Church and State. Justice Souter stated "compelling an individual to support religion violates the fundamental principal of freedom of conscience".
9. Great supporting information abound to support the author's key points. Many great links to studies.
10. So many great issues discussed: three strikes, assisted death, abortion, criminal rights, personal injuries, individual liberties, etc...
11. Interesting and fascinating tidbits about some of the Justices and their voting history. As an example, Justice Thomas may well in fact be the most conservative Justice of the Supreme Court.
12. One of the most eye-opening books that clearly demonstrates a direct correlation with our lives.

Negatives:
1. Conservatives are most likely not inclined to read this book but should.
2. I would have liked to have seen illustrations showing the composition of the courts over the years (eras if you will) and voting records on the most important issues. As an example, we know that the Warren Court was a liberal court and I would have liked the composition of that court and a summary of most important cases. It would have certainly have enhanced this great book.
3. Having to wait for Mr. Chemerinsky's next book.

In summary, a fascinating book that focuses on how conservative Justices have assaulted our Constitution. An eloquently written book that conveys profound legal concepts for the masses, an accomplishment indeed. I want to thank Mr. Chemerinsky for making this book accessible and interesting. I can't recommend this book enough. Bravo!

Superb Book, December 19, 2010
Well written, well document. Exposes myths. Reading this book will make you a more informed and discriminating individual.

The title should specify *unwritten* constitution, December 2, 2010
After reading Erwin Chemerinsky's The Conservative Assault on the Constitution recently, I've come to understand just how policy driven his approach to the Constitution is. I thought it was noteworthy that not even Bill Maher defends the Democrats shameful politicization of the judicial nomination of Robert Bork, and yet Dean Chemerinsky hales it as a victory for the Progressive view that a right to abortion, among other things, ought to be judicially amended to the Constitution. To understand his book, one need only slightly recast its title: call it "The Conservative Assault on the constitution"--as in, the unwritten, judicially rendered constitution, and you begin to get the picture. Nearly every case analyzed by Chemerinsky involves conservatives chipping away at Progressive decisional law, not U.S. Constitutional law. Supreme Court decisions rolling back affirmative action and arcane forced desegregation programs, permitting cr�ches and Ten Commandments displays on state or local government property, paring down the admittedly prophylactic exclusionary rule of criminal evidence in aid of good faith law enforcement, and so on.

Indeed, it would be impossible to understand what "conservative assault on the constitution" Chemerinsky is talking about unless one understands the "liberal assault" that began in the 1930s. Chemerinsky rebuffs the argument that the text of the written Constitution ought to be supreme, since this would ignore subsequent decisional law that regards that text as unimportant. To insist on adherence to the Constitution's text, Chemerinsky argues, "urges a radical change in constitutional law."

Thus, it is the post-1930s "constitution" that concerns Chemerinsky. And he calls the pre-1947 interpretation of the Establishment Clause--which applies only to "Congress," and not state and local governments--"radical," and expresses relief that Clarence Thomas is the only Supreme Court Justice who would faithfully apply the actual text of the First Amendment.

In this regard, Chemerinsky is absolutely right that this fraudulent "constitution" is under assault.

Wing Nut, November 2, 2010
I don't know what this author has been smoking, but I sure would like to get some for myself. Chemerinsky not only gets his facts wrong, he basically invents them simply to justify his political opinion. Utter nonsense. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The Seventeenth Edition provides comprehensive coverage of all areas of constitutional law, including judicial review, separation of powers, federalism, due process, equal protection, free speech, and religious liberty. It emphasizes constitutional law as a species of law, and aims to enable students who use it to practice constitutional law as lawyers. It also seeks to illuminate the historical, theoretical, and philosophical background that bears on constitutional law and informs its practice. The 17th edition thoroughly revises, updates and streamlines this classic casebook, emphasizing contemporary problems in areas from the war on terror to new uses of the Internet. Highlights of the 17th edition include updates on extensive coverage of the War on Terror (executive discretion on latest Guantanomo case in Chapter 6; update on decisions involving congressional civil rights enforcement power; the latest First Amendment cases involving fleeting expletives and religious monuments in public parks; updates on campaign finance (plus look at ;millionaire exception); voter identification requirements; and the right to bear arms (Second Amendment) individual right (Heller). ... Read more

Editorial Review

Features the entire text of The U.S Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, plus much more! ... Read more

Reviews

A concise review of the worlds most powerful document, July 24, 2001
I was first introduced to this book while attending law school. During my Constitutional law classes a professor recomended this little pocket book that reviewed and outlined the constitution. I was amazed then and continue to be delighted with the the historical developments that are shared in this "quick read". For under three dollars I actually learned more on the constitution than I did with texts that cost several hundreds of dollars each. ***** Five Stars, this is a real keeper.

A little giant, October 18, 2001
This pocket-sized volume is a perfect jewel for all citizens from grade school on up. I stumbled across it after I lost the first pocket-sized Constitution I was given in high school. Although less than 100 pages from cover to cover, this book contains so much valuable information on the founding of the country, including facts on many of those who guided the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The book also contains the Decleration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and key dates and Supreme Court cases that have shaped this country and the Constitution's interpretation.

This book is a keeper for all who cherish our freedom and should be read and re-read as a reminder of why this is a great country and why it prospered in relatively short order.

Excellent!, October 11, 2000
"How many people realize that the first president of the United States was not George Washington but a man named John Hanson?

How many know that the state of Pennsylvania was misspelled as "Pensylvania" on the U.S. Constitution? And who knew that in 1876 an amendment to the Constitution was introduced that would have abolished the U.S. Senate? Or that another amendment, proposed in 1893, would have renamed the country the United States of the Earth?

All of these fun and little-known facts can be found in a pocket size guide to the constitution entitled "The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It."

I found this wording on the web site for the book at ...and it is the best way for me to tell readers why I thought this book was excellent. The book is interesting and fast reading, and you learn a lot of fun and intersting facts along the way. I can't say enough good things about the book and the author!

A wonderful book!, October 5, 1999
This book is fast becoming one of my main resources for classes in school. It puts all of the things that I needed for the classes in an easy to carry book. It is extremely handy to have compared to a textbook! Great Job!

WOW. By J. Markowitz, January 23, 2001
That's the only word that can possibly come out of one's mouth when you get a load of this book. This book is something that should be used as a reference in every home! There is a copy of the entire Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, heck, what more could you ask for? Facts? You ask for facts? Hey, there are awesome facts, good to know facts, and just for the fun of it facts, too! Like, in 1878, an amendment stating that an executive council of three should replace the president tried to get passed! For only a few bucks, I'm very glad I purchased this book because I love it and use it all the time.

Good Reference, May 31, 2001
This book is a great for any student taking American history or someone who just wants to have it around the house. It has a copies of all the important documents in our nation's history. It includes lists tons of quotes about both democracy and "the system" and is both informative and humorous. (And besides, it's only a few bucks, so what the heck, right?)

Rights reserved to the People, February 10, 2007
Justice Hugo Black. Senator Robert Byrd. You.

People who always kept a copy of this important document in their pocket (or handbag). This edition will fit.

No excuses. You never know when someone might need it.

Worth Every Penny, August 22, 2007
I enjoyed reading this book. I enjoyed finding out the "unspoken" information about past Presidents fascinating. I believe that every American should read the Declaration of Independence and not only know the Presidents who signed it but because it is the rights in which our country is founded on. You can't defend rights you don't know you have. This book is a "MUST" for your freedom and entertainment as well.

This is a great little book, but the binding doesn't hold up well., January 23, 2008
This is a great book. It covers the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution as well as an abundance of interesting facts about the Framers of the Constitution.

The book is compact and students can easily carry it with them everywhere they go. This book is also very affordable.

There is a problem with this book's binding though. The book tends to come apart. The book's good for students, but since the Constitution is so important, I would give students a hardback when they graduate which they can have in their personal library for the rest of their lives.

Small and Easy to Use, April 26, 2008
You can't really write a review about the Constitution! But I can tell you that this little book is not too difficult on the eyes, easy to use and simple for carrying to class. It doesn't weigh much in a pocket or a backpack, and this is the version I've used throughout my grad-school days. And after several years of thumbing through it, the book still hasn't fallen apart! ... Read more

Editorial Review

In the years before World War II, Franklin Roosevelt's fiercest, most unyielding opponent was neither a foreign power nor "fear itself." It was the U.S. Supreme Court.

Beginning in 1935, in a series of devastating decisions, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority left much of FDR’s agenda in ruins. The pillars of the New Deal fell in short succession. It was not just the New Deal, but democracy itself, that stood on trial. In February 1937, Roosevelt struck back with an audacious plan to expand the Court to fifteen justices—and to “pack” the new seats with liberals who shared his belief in a “living” Constitution.

The ensuing fight was a firestorm that engulfed the White House, the Court, Congress, and the nation. The final verdict was a shock. It dealt FDR the biggest setback of his political life, split the Democratic party, and set the stage for a future era of Republican dominance. Yet the battle also transformed America’s political and constitutional landscape, hastening the nation’s march into the modern world.

This brilliant work of history unfolds like a thriller, with vivid characters and unexpected twists. Providing new evidence and fresh insight, Jeff Shesol shows why understanding the Court fight is essential to understanding the presidency, personality, and legacy of FDR—and to understanding America at a crossroads in its history.

Reviews

The Title Says It All, March 27, 2010
Mr. Shesol has created a wonderful and readable account of politics in the 1930's. Even the chapter titles are colorful and implies the high stakes involved in the political showdown between the liberal President and the conservative Supreme Court. The author does not begin his tale in 1937 (the year of the court-packing political battle), but in 1932 with Roosevelt's election in a time of economic turmoil. He clearly covers Roosevelt's first term with the New Deal programs that were overturned by the Supreme Court, the 1936 landslide victory by Roosevelt and then his political decision to deal with all the 5-4 and 6-3 court rulings that he lost. With 500+ pages of text and 100 pages of supporting documentation/index, this is an excellent work of political history.

FDR and the Supremes--Once Again, April 24, 2010
There are a number of excellent books on the battle over the 1937 Court packing plan put forward by President Roosevelt in 1937 by, for example, Marian C. McKenna, Burt Solomon, and William E. Leuchtenburg. Each book takes a slightly different approach from the others; combined they afford an expansive and thorough view of this fascinating episode. This most recent recounting of the tale stands high, in my opinion, even in this distinguished group. For one thing, the author keeps his primary focus at all times where it should be: on FDR, his Attorney General Homer Cummings, and the FDR intimate circle of advisors: Tommy the Cork, Harold Ickes, Ben Cohen, Warner Gardner, James Roosevelt and Felix Frankfurter. Moreover, the author labors hard to give us the most complete peek into what was going on inside the Court during this period. This involves extensive manuscript research, reviews of published letters and unpublished diaries, information drawn from judicial biographies, and extensive press research. By its very secret nature, we will never know as much as we would like about what was taking place within the Court, but this book offers us certainly the most complete picture to date. Another strong advantage of the book is that the author sequentially introduces each element (and character) of the story so that the reader is not overwhelmed with everything (and massive detail) occurring all at once. This makes it much easier to understand what is happening since the reader can build upon what has already been explained as each new development takes place.

I found the book particularly helpful in its depiction of the key players in the White House, Congress, among interest groups such as the Liberty League, and within the Court itself. Enough biographical background is given to help establish the context within which the key actors played their roles--Justices McReynolds, Hughes, Brandeis and Roberts; Senator Joe Robinson who led the fight; press lord Frank E. Gannett; and Senator Burt Wheeler who directed the opposition are a few examples. The author squarely lays the blame for the fiasco with the White House group, who bungled, delayed, miscalculated, misrepesented key facts, and refused to compromise when a partial victory could still have been claimed (maybe two additional justices rather than five). It is interesting that the author sees this battle as not so much between branches as rather being within factions of the Democratic Party. The portrait of FDR that emerges is one of personality weaknesses, overconfidence, and a love for the secret and dramatic. This examination of FDR under the microscope, I think, is one of the book's major contributions. Finally, probably the greatest virtue of the many demonstrated in this book is that the reader understands not only what happens but why. That is to say, the book explains and does not just recount facts.

The book takes around 600 pages (including notes) to deliver its analysis. The 66 pages of valuable notes attest to the diligence of the author's research in manuscript collections, published sources, interviews, and especially diaries held in various archives such as the Library of Congress and the University of Virginia. A twelve page bibliography and thorough index also are included. There is a reason so much has been written about this amazing episode since 1937. And all these fascinating elements are on display in this excellent study.

A masterpiece, May 26, 2010
In Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, Jeff Shesol manages to do something rare: combine excellent research and a gripping narrative. (For those familiar with Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, I think the writing style and amount of detail are similar). The book deals with Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court with extra justices in 1937 - an attempt that ultimately failed and, unfortunately, few people remember today. Shesol brings this important episode in our history to life.

First of all, Shesol resists the temptation of many historians to make the past prologue. He doesn't recite the whole history of the U.S. Supreme Court, nor does he stretch historical analogies to draw "lessons" or "comparisons" for today. Rather, Supreme Power stays focused like a laser on the subject of the book, beginning in 1932 with FDR's election. This allows Shesol to really delve into detail, spending almost all of the book's 530 pages on FDR and the court. (Incidentally, if you know absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court or its history, you might want to scan wikipedia quickly before reading this book).

And the detail in the book is extraordinary. I studied FDR's court-packing scheme in law school and read the major cases discussed in the book, but I felt I learned much more reading Supreme Power than I did in 3 years of law school. For example, I had read the Schecter case, which invalidated important New Deal legislation, but I did not even know about the businessmen and activists who formed associations, such as the American Liberty League, to launch test cases like Schecter. It turns out the Schecter brothers even voted for FDR in the 1936 elections! Another fascinating trivia bit revealed early in the book is that the whole issue almost became moot because Justices Sutherland and Van Devanter almost retired in 1932 - but refused to do so when Congress lowered their pensions.

Shesol also strives - and for the most part achieves - the ideal of historical objectivity (pay the reviewer who claims Shesol is sympathetic to FDR no heed). He is quite willing to point out the flaws of the New Deal and the fact that it wasn't universally popular (raising concerns similar to Amity Shales' The Forgotten Man). He also seeks to uncover the ulterior motivations of men like Senator Burton K. Wheeler (against court-packing) and Joe Robinson (for).

However - and this I found remarkable - Shesol also tries to understand the logic and motivations behind the court-packing plan itself. All too often, historians deride the plan as a mistake or doomed to fail. Yet, Shesol shows that the plan did in fact have an organic history and genesis of its own. He discusses the longstanding concern that many observers, including former president and chief justice Taft, had regarding judges over the age of 70. In fact, FDR's chief foe on the Supreme Court, arch-conservative Justice McReynolds, proposed a similar plan during the Wilson administration. In short, Shesol shows readers the type of information bombarding the White House about elder judges, as well as how FDR and his advisors could convince themselves that adding additional judges for each over the age of 70 was a brilliant solution.

My one complaint - and it is a small one - is that Shesol does not seem to make much use of the political science literature about courts and judicial review. This is a shame. I think political science offers many compelling explanations about why elites would oppose limits on judicial review. For example, Tom Ginsburg's Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases advances the theory that elites view judicial review as important to protect themselves if they ever become relegated to minority status (for example, Republicans becoming the minority party in Congress). Some of these theories can be found in some form in Supreme Power, but Shesol, who is primarily a historian, primarily credits the political dynamics of the 1930s for defeating FDR's plan rather than larger political and institutional forces.

Supreme Power will probably become the primary account of FDR's court-packing scheme for some time. Highly recommended for anybody interested in American history or the politics of courts.

A superb history of Franklin Roosevelt's confrontation with the Supreme Court, July 4, 2010
The effort by Franklin Roosevelt to "pack" the Supreme Court in 1937 is regarded today as one of the greatest political missteps ever made by a president. Devised in response to the Court's rejection of New Deal legislation, it galvanized a seemingly moribund conservative opposition and cost Roosevelt the enormous momentum he possessed coming out of his landslide 1936 reelection victory. Jeff Shesol does not dispute this conclusion, but instead seeks to explain the background to the plan and the course of the battle over it. In doing so, he has provided an absorbing account that illuminates many forgotten or overlooked aspects of the dispute.

Shesol traces the origins of the conflict to the very beginning of Roosevelt's presidency. From the first he and his administration were concerned about the fate of the New Deal when it was subjected to judicial review, both because of the dubious nature of much of the emergency legislation and because of the traditional role the Supreme Court had played in striking down economic regulation. Here the author does a good job of presenting the Court, showing how in spite of assumptions about its conservatism it nonetheless handed down a number of "liberal" decisions that gave many New Dealers cause for hope. The famous decision in the Schecter case ended causes for such hopes, and as the frustration over the Court mounted Roosevelt and his aides began to search for a solution to the Court's immovability.

Though numerous approaches were considered, ultimately Roosevelt settled on a plan to expand the number of justices on the Court in order to appoint more members sympathetic to the New Deal. The plan he endorsed was devised by Homer Cummings, Roosevelt's first Attorney General, and one of the strengths of Shesol's book is in elevating this often-overlooked figure to his rightful place in the history of the plan. Roosevelt deferred action until he was successfully reelected in 1936, during which he campaigned against conservative opposition to the New Deal but not explicitly against the Court - a decision that Shesol argues helped to avoid controversy that might have cost him votes but that also deprived him of any ability to use his victory to push the measure through Congress. Presented against a backdrop of increasing totalitarianism in Europe, the plan alienated many within even his own party, and it was they who soon emerged as its most prominent opponents. Yet Shesol argues that even after Owen Roberts's timely switch in the Parrish case and Willis Van Devanter's retirement in May 1937 deprived the plan's supporters of many of their arguments, a scaled-down version of the bill might have passed were it not for the death of Joseph Robinson, the Senate majority leader, in July. Without his leadership, the plan died quickly, dealing Roosevelt his first major political setback and leaving in its wake a strong conservative opposition to further extension of the New Deal.

Fluidly written and based on a considerable amount of research, Shesol's book is a superb history of Franklin Roosevelt and his confrontation with the Supreme Court. Not only is the author is a sure guide to the complex cases that defined the struggle, he also has an eye for the telling anecdote, which helps him to bring color to the greyest branch of the government. With the clarity of its prose and wealth of details, it will likely serve for some time as the definitive history of the issue, one that readers can read for enjoyment as well as enlightenment.

Nine Old Men vs. FDR, July 12, 2010
FDR versus the Supreme Court - this is one of the least understood aspects of FDR's presidency: his plan to pack the court so that his New Deal would survive legal challenges. This power struggle between the President, Congress and the Supreme Court would divide the institutions of power for months. Jeff Shesol brings together in-depth information and background on the major and minor characters to paint a picture of a country in flux, changing ideas of what the federal government was capable of accomplishing, practically and legally. Powerful forces were at play - from the justices on the Supreme Court, both liberal and conservative, to the President who wanted to appoint his own judges, to a Congress which refused to serve as a rubber stamp.

The writing is engaging, and this is a quick read because the events and the characters just grab your attention and will not let go. Mr. Shesol goes in depth on the justices, their life stories and their views of the Constitution. He even gives us the stories of other players involved, mainly on the conservative side. It does get a little dry - he really goes in depth with the court-packing plan and the daily progress of events - still, an excellent work.

Reviewed by Kevin Winter

Full court press, May 3, 2010
It's hard to imagine anything like a plan to pack the Supreme Court seeing the light of day currently (although many of us might want to do just that with the current SC make-up) but in 1937 it was a hard reality and Jeff Shesol's excellent book about that plan explores the history and politics behind it. One wonders how the court would have changed if it had been implemented.

As with any good historical drama there is a cast of characters composed of heroes and villains...the good and the bad depending on which side you were on, of course. At the center are President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, each man sharing some of the temporary triumphs and downfalls of the months when the court packing plan was under consideration. Supporting the president were men like Homer Cummings, FDR's Attorney General, who largely took credit for conceiving the idea of court packing and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Robinson of Arkansas, whose end-of-career hopes would be the very Supreme Court position which FDR might have opened up for him had the plan gone through. Opposing the president were Senator Burton Wheeler of Montana, the Liberty League and a host of newspapers around the country dedicated to giving FDR a very rough time on the matter.

Shesol leads up to the "180 Days" with a riveting account of FDR's election and his first years in office delivering up New Deal goodies. FDR's overwhelming re-election in 1936 set the stage for the court fight and it was a grand one, indeed. The author relates the main story through an ongoing timeline, giving a background of the personalities of the SC justices and the cases they were hearing. It's informative and told well. The color of "Supreme Power", however, really lies with Congress and its outsized personalities. The court plan, which began largely in secret, created a parallel to today's "tea parties", in a sense...the outrage of mob mentality gone awry. What makes the tale so gripping is that either side had a chance to win, and Shesol is at his best explaining why one side would rise and fall...only to rise and fall again.

In the end, the court packing plan was defeated, but FDR got somewhat of a sweet revenge that by 1942 he had appointed all but two of the judges on the bench. Shesol leaves some room for his own conclusions, giving more speculation than answers sometimes, but that is the mark of a good historian. "Supreme Power" is a terrific book and I highly recommend it.

Reads like great fiction--but it's all true!, August 11, 2010
Even if you're not a history buff you won't want to miss this wonderful book. It's not only a thrilling story, incredibly well-told, but it's amazing how similar the problems facing FDR were to those tormenting Obama these days. There was even an earlier (and smarter) version of the Tea Party. Terrific characters and the most important national issues make this a vital story that's totally fun to read.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, May 24, 2010
Imagine a time in American history in which Wall Street collapsed under the weight of its own machinations, the right wing press regularly accused the president of implementing communism and socialism, the Supreme Court undermined reform acts of congress in favor of big business and phony populist movements were established by the wealthy. Is this America under Obama? No it is the United States under FDR.

Jeff Shesol, as a former member of the Clinton speech-writing team charts the conflict between FDR and the court. And what a story this is! Anyone who believes that there was once a time in which power politics were never upper most in people's should stay away from this book since it will shake this world view to its foundations.

Roosevelt came into office during a time when most institutions had fallen into disrepute. The only way Herbert Hoover's reputation could have been worse would have been had he bungled a war or two somewhere beyond the boundaries of the United States. The times demanded new leadership and new solutions, and with that in mind, Roosevelt was elected to the presidency.

The problems that the 32nd president faced were monumental and truth be told despite an unparalleled period of legislative accomplishment, the 100 Days, not every law passed by congress and signed into law was conceived under optimal conditions. Two of the first hallmarks of Roosevelt's first term, the AAA and NRA were rushed through an obedient congress. The flaws of both would make them among the most controversial measures of the day.

These programs also set the administration in conflict with the Supreme Court. Congress did something else to help create an unfavorable environment by cutting the pensions for federal judges. This minor economy ensured that none of the justices had any incentive to retire and quite a number of reasons to stay on. Some like the reactionary McReynolds stayed on out of sheer dislike for the FDR and a desire to outlast him.

Roosevelt's primary opponent was Chief Justice Hughes, himself another former governor of New York, and also an unsuccessful candidate for president in 1916 (it came down to a few thousand votes in California). Hughes proved himself a master politician largely by pretending not to be. As the public face of the Supreme Court, Hughes understood the significance of less is more.

Shesol shows just how important perceptions are in politics. During 1935, many people viewed Roosevelt as vulnerable, not really understanding the volatility of public opinion. During this time, the Liberty League (a sort of precursor of the Tea Party Movement) was founded and underwritten largely by the Dupont family and staffed by disappointed former Democrats like Al Smith and Jouett Shouse who with Roosevelt's election, lost all influence in the party. Then as now patronage usually trumps principles.

The Supreme Court rather blindly managed to restore Roosevelt's fortunes by eliminating both the NRA and AAA, measures dear to the New Dealers, but disliked by the public at large and dismissed as failed experiments by FDR himself. With these potential drains on FDR's popularity ruled as unconstitutional, FDR was able to triumph on 1936 over a Republican Party which was beholding to the Liberty League for funds and an agenda.

The battle over the court consumed much of the political life of the country from February 1937 to August of that year. Hughes proved to be surprising supple on controversial issues like Social Security and Collective Bargaining. This former candidate for the presidency knew how to read and election return. Roosevelt who usually was a political mastermind was defeated largely though his own inability to know when to give up the fight to expand the court from nine justices to fifteen. In the process he established the basis of the socially conservative Southern and pro-big business alliance that has defined the Republican Party since the Civil Rights era. In the short term, Roosevelt may have lost the battle, but won the war. The judicial activism that favored business interests that characterized the court in Roosevelt's term was gone. Progressive legislation could stand constitutional muster. Roosevelt unfortunately would not really recover his relationship with congress until WWII.

This is an excellent book and well worth savoring since Shesol has peppered his narrative with many interesting period details concerning the main players in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government in the 1930s.

Think You Know About Court Packing, May 2, 2010
Think you know about the Court Packing plan? You probably do not, as evidenced by this detailed and smooth flowing account that provides context, facts, and analysis that any student of 20th Century American History and political science will welcome. In addition, the book helps readers understand the relationship between FDR, Congress, the press and the people which has been lost over time to a new generation of readers. And, if inter-party battles, political grandstanding, stubbornness of the executive branch, entrenched conservatism, court politics, judicial arrogance and self-righteousness, and manipulation of the media seem new phenomena, this book will explain why history teaches us that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Obama Redux?, April 24, 2010
My first and indelible impression is how much this book echoes current affairs to a certain extent. A president is elected in the midst of a financial crisis of great magnitude. Seemingly radical in his liberalism, he forces through a series of laws through Congress that are staggering in size and cost in the attempt to get the country back on track. The Judicial branch is a study in conservatism. The laws enacted tumble like poorly stacked dominoes when they are revoked after judicial review and found to be unconstitutional. The sitting president is re-elected in part to a rise in his own popularity due to the effectiveness of his actions which seemingly have spurred some economic recovery. In order to continue along his current path, the president realizes that he needs to continue on unincumbered and sees the most viable path to take is to change the balance of the Supreme Court and pack it with members who have similar philosophies to his own. Can I now use the cliche that 'history repeats itself'?
As someone whose American history classes in school never seemed to get through the coursework beyond WWI, I am always wide eyed and in awe of the audacity of these new (for me) revelations. This book is another instance where it has been shown that not everything is a new one for the books. When I read TEAM OF RIVALS I marvelled at how Lincoln managed to pull it together and get the great minds of his time to work in unison in an arranged and some time at odds strange yet functional marriage. Little did I realize that this concept would be recycled as would others in regard to the makeup of the Supreme Court which invariably seems to be a constant issue.
It should come as no surprise to me that there was a precedent for what we've seen in the news lately as this book thoroughly outlines that precedent.
I liked this book very much. It was well-written and documented the attempts by FDR's White House to populate the Supreme Court with justices who echoed FDR's views and would facilitate them in the future. It detailed the going ons in Washington with constitutional law and governmental checks and balances. Sometimes maybe too much in awe of FDR's powerful personality and boldness, it still managed to hit the mark in explaining one aspect of FDR's tactics in influencing the law and public policy.
This is a wonderful read for anyone interested in the US Constitution, 20th century American politics, US history, the Supreme Court or constitutional law and wants to learn more or ponder on what they already know. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Collected here in one affordable volume are the most important documents of the United States of America: The Constitution of the United States of America, with the Bill of Rights and all of the Amendments; The Declaration of Independence; and the Articles of Confederation. These three documents are the basis for our entire way of life. Every citizen should have a copy. ... Read more

Reviews

Ignore the morons who comment on the constitution and not on the product, which is this compilation., November 8, 2009
Unlike the half-wits who are commenting on the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation, I will be commenting on the publishers (Wilder Publications & A&D Publishing) compilation of the documents. DO NOT buy this publication. The publisher inserted "notes" all over the place. I don't know if it was an accident in the copying of the documents from one format to another but it detracts from the text. And, this is absolutely brilliant, it inserted the following disclaimer: "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today..." Really Wilder! that is your view of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

Awful editing, politically-correct disclaimer, a bit of a travesty, March 28, 2009
When I refer to the awful editing, I am, of course, not talking about the archaic spelling of some of the words which should remain spelled like they were in the original documents, I am referring to words like "note," or "history" that were sprinkled about in The Constitution. Article 6 of the Constitution appears twice in differing fonts. It is a nightmare of editorial proportions. Additionally on the copyright page there is a disclaimer telling us about how if the documents were written today, they would be more politically correct, and blah-blah (others have commented so I won't quote the bit.)

I would have only given this one star, but it contained a copy of The Articles of Confederation, as well as The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence, so, for convenience-sake I'm bumping it to 2 stars.

Awful, awful editing...totally unnecessary and frankly insulting disclaimer. Find another publisher if you wish to buy these documents.

Publisher tells us how to interpret the constitution!, January 12, 2010
Disclaimer from the publisher;

"This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

Buy a copy of the Constitution from another publisher!

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, June 6, 2010
If I had known the disclaimer was in the front of this book, warning people about the contents, I would never have purchased it. If you love our country and the laws on which it is based, you should find another source for these papers.

The disclaimer at the beginning is a disgrace to the Constitution, May 19, 2010
Read no further than this quote on page 3:

' "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today..."

SERIOUSLY? Are the publishers at Wilder REALLY THAT INCOMPETENT???

I wouldn't take a copy of this publication if you GAVE IT TO ME. DON'T BUY THIS BOOK!!!

The Supreme Law of the Land v. The "progressive" Moronic Publishers, April 23, 2010
Basically the publishers, or publishing company, included a small paragraph on the copyright page. It states: "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work"

Since when is the Constitution, a living document, or the Declaration of Independence a classic work to be read and admired the same way as the Iliad or The Republic would be? The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence never change with the times and should always be considered FIRST when debating about governmental or societal issues.

The paragraph included in this collection is sickening and frankly, horrifying. Whomever teaches children about their country and freedoms should never compromise these documents in the vain guise of "political correctness" or not wanting to offend someones poor little feelings.

The only way to protect freedom, individualism, and security is to continually and unceasingly judge any act of government or governmental officials based on how well they know and abide by the Constitution. When people compromise their rights for any reason whatsoever, tyranny and oppression will soon follow.

So find a better copy of these documents and drive these worm-ridden publishers out into the darkness.

Shame on Amazon, June 8, 2010
This is sad and there is no reason Amazon should be selling any of this companies work. Wilder publishing acts as if this work is the same as Mark Twain or Poe and their remarks in there disclaimer are personally offensive to me. This is the founding of our nation and government written by some of the brightest minds the world has ever seen and developed from the ideas of Greeks and Romans and the ideas of Hobbes and Locke. This is a failure of understanding government as well as politics and if people feel that they need this disclaimer on the Constitution than they have most likely never read it, if they have read it then I know they did not understand it, but what makes me sick is I bet they still went out and voted. Next these fools will be trying to put disclaimers in religious text if we do not stop this here. Amazon needs to drop this publisher and apologies to its buyers now.

Copyright page is arrogant!, October 31, 2008
This Constitution is published by Wilder Publications. The copyright page says this:

"This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

I don't know what to make of that. If it says what I think it says I think I want a Constitution from another publisher! That statement seems to say that the Publisher is telling us how to read it! They are saying that it's principles couldn't possibly mean the same thing today! What arrogance! I hope they don't mean these things but how can I not come to these conclusions?

Curious disclaimer. Excessive notation., May 11, 2010

I find it peculiar that this publisher felt it necessary to include a disclaimer in the front pages warning parents that they may want to explain to their children how the doc's. are a product of their time and would not reflect the same values as if written today. Especially in the areas of race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and inter personal relationships. Also, excessive notations are questionable. Much better products available at national center for constitutional studies or cato. Infowars, because there's a war on for your mind!

A travesty, June 5, 2010
I concur with the others who've pointed out that any book that writes off our Founding Documents as "A classic work" as if it were some useless novel written hundreds of years ago, should be barred from publishing anything that claims to be our Constitution. I think a better 'discussion for parents to have with their children' might be for them to discuss that The Constitution is supposed to be the constraining document of our government, and whether even a child, can see the slightest constraining effect anymore in upon our government. They might also want to discuss blatant bias in the media and publishing world.

Regrettably, this sat on a shelf too long before I read it and found the 'disclaimer', and thus I was unable to return it. The last thing I want is my money going to a company that has this little respect for our Constitution. ... Read more

Editorial Review

This guide is the first of its kind, and presents the U.S. Constitution as never before, including a clause-by-clause analysis of the document, each amendment and relevant court case, and the documents that serve as the foundation of the Constitution. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Long among the leading casebooks in its field, Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition, offers a rich selection of critical and social perspectives on constitutional issues. With incisive analysis and a multi-disciplinary approach, this luminary author team offers a full and nuanced exploration of constitutional themes.

A contemporary view of constitutional law within a traditional doctrinal structure, Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition, features:

• a range of critical and social perspectives
• a multi-disciplinary approach that includes political theory, philosophy, sociology, ethics, history, and economics
• a combination of lightly and more tightly edited cases that encourages close textual analysis while providing a range of important opinions and pivotal cases
• brilliant text and note material that summarizes the state of the law and its development
• a logical two-part organization:
  • balance of powers among the Supreme Court and local, state, and federal governments
  • the rights and powers of individuals
• comprehensive coverage that is ideal for a two-semester course
• annual supplementation—in this annual supplement, the First Amendment materials are separated out to facilitate research
• outstanding coverage of First Amendment law, now updated and revised to incorporate:
  • cases and materials on campaign finance regulation
  • sexual expression, child pornography, and commercial advertising

Along with streamlined note material, the Sixth Edition provides new, revised, and updated coverage that includes:

• the Constitution and the war on terror
• the Court's use of foreign law material
• the law and politics of abortion
• vote dilution, political gerrymandering, and requirements
• treaties and federal power as tied to the Court's decision in Medellin v. Texas
• Reconstruction Amendments in light of Nevada v. Hibbs and Tennessee v. Lane
• substantially revised school desegregation materials, with Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
• revised materials on sexual orientation
• climate change and standing

Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition provides rich notes, text, and material that will deepen your students' understanding of constitutional issues far beyond doctrinal analysis alone. ... Read more

Editorial Review

In The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, readers will follow the Supreme Court as it uses the Constitution as a fig leaf to cover its blatant seizing of the people's right to govern themselves through elections. Gutzman unveils the radical inconsistency between constitutional law and the rule of law, and shows why and how the Supreme Court should be reined in to the proper role assigned to it by the Founders. ... Read more

Editorial Review

To ensure that you have the most up-to-date and complete materials for your Constitutional Law class, be sure to use Constitutional Law, 2010 Case Supplement.

• The major cases from 2009-10—new for this supplement—are these:
• United States v. Comstock (federal legislative power)
• Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (federal executive power)
• McDonald v. City of Chicago (application of Bill of Rights to the States)
• United States v. Stevens (First Amendment—freedom of speech)
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (First Amendment—freedom of speech)
• Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (First Amendment—freedom of speech)
• Doe v. Reed (First Amendment—freedom of speech