Amazon.com
"The majority of historians seem to suggest that the founders knew just what to do--and did it, creating a government that would endure for centuries," writes CUNY historian Carol Berkin in the introduction to A Brilliant Solution. Sitting atop the pedestals we've placed them on, these figures would be "amused" by such notions, she says, because in reality the Constitutional Convention was gripped by "a near-paranoid fear of conspiracies" and might easily have succumbed to "a collective anxiety" over its daunting task. The story of the birth of the U.S. Constitution has been told many times, perhaps best by Catherine Drinker Bowen in Miracle at Philadelphia. Berkin's rendition of these well-known events is clear and concise. It does a bit more telling than showing, but this seems to be in the service of brevity--the main text is only about 200 pages. (Another 100 pages of useful appendices follow, including the full texts of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, plus short biographies of all the convention delegates.) Berkin is an opinionated narrator, unafraid, for instance, to call Maryland's Luther Martin "determinedly uncouth." She also points out that American government has evolved in ways that would make the founders cringe: they believed the presidency would be a ceremonial office (rather than the locus of the nation's political power) and that political parties were bad (when, in fact, they have served democracy well). Readers who want a sure-footed introduction to America's founding would do well to start here. --John J. Miller
Book Description
We know--and love--the story of the American Revolution, from the Declaration of Independence to Cornwallis's defeat. But our first government was a disaster and the country was in a terrible crisis. So when a group of men traveled to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to save a nation in danger of collapse, they had no great expectations for the meeting that would make history. But all the ideas, arguments, and compromises led to a great thing: a constitution and a government were born that have surpassed the founders'
greatest hopes.
Revisiting all the original documents and using her deep knowledge of eighteenth-century history and politics, Carol Berkin takes a fresh look at the men who framed the Constitution, the issues they faced, and the times they lived in. Berkin transports the reader into the hearts and minds of the founders, exposing their fears and their limited expectations
of success.
Customer Reviews:
A Reflection of the Past.......2007-03-15
In light of current events that occurred after the turn of the century, the presidential election of 2000 and the US Pentagon and World Trade Center disaster, Carol Berkin laments on those events as well as her life as a historian, and responds by reflecting on the historical past with her book, A BRILLIANT SOLUTION: INVENTING THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION. She revisits the US Constitution with the present in mind, but reflects on the past with a critical eye. For example, Berkin asks one of the most frequently asked questions to arise in recent times, what would the Founding Fathers do?
Berkin succinctly provides answers with her examination of the Founding Fathers and state delegates who helped comprise and create of one of the most significant documents in American history. The book is not meant to be a comprehensive examination, but a concise narrative that describes the inception of the Constitution, which began with the Articles of Confederation, and includes a vicissitude of discussion, which reveals the impassioned activity and skepticism that occurred in the writing of the document that even the Founders did not think would succeed. With her dramatic discussion surrounding the events of the writing of the Constitution, Berkin contains a character sketch of the key framers that intimately describes their intellect as well as their quirks and eccentricities. From personal squabbles to triumphant cooperation, it is amazing that everyone came out of the experience alive.
The biographical sketches after her discussion spotlights each delegate and their unique personal qualities. Most of the delegates attained their education through prominent universities at home and abroad, and came from distinguishable families. But for those who did not, they came from modest upbringings and backgrounds, which ran the gamut of artisans, agrarians, and merchants. Upon reading through each synopsis, several of the names rear close to home in terms of Virginia history, from the famous George Washington to the eminent George Wythe; as a teacher at the College of William and Mary, Wythe "trained Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Marshall in the law" (248).
A BRILLIANT SOLUTION reads like an essay with its compact and reader friendly format. For the casual history reader, the book is a welcome introduction to the US Constitution and those who helped construct the foundations of American society, which included the rights for individuals as interpreted through governmental laws. Overall, this book stresses the importance of understanding the present through a historical perspective.
Not recommended.......2007-01-05
Decent book as a popular history but for anyone who wishes to go further...Berkin cites absolutely no sources in the text! She could be making this stuff up for all we know. There is a 3 page "Note on Sources" towards the end of the book but it is just a short bibliography, not a list of citations. Not recommended.
Nicely Done........2005-12-20
If you are looking for a short, understandable compendium of how the US Constitution evolved, then this is the book for you. Carol Berkin has done a very good job of putting these critical deliberations, the pros and the cons, forward in layman's terms. Better yet, the prose is clear, crisp and incisive. This is a succinct volume in which every word counts, so you will probably want to read it through more than once.
The story of our Constitution is really quite amazing. None of those who helped write it, who agreed with it or fought against its adoption ever thought they were forging a document that could possibly be so enduring. Many of the central issues the original framers debated, argued and fought over, such as States rights vs. a national, central government, remain critical issues today. More importantly, these issues are debated just as intensely today as when the original framework was set up.
You will enjoy this well written work. Ms. Berkin communicates well with her readers, does not appear to have an interpretative agenda, and does quite a good job at enabling the reader to become more conversant regarding the central document upon which our republican form of government is founded. Most of all she will leave you with an enthusiasm to learn more.
Not Brilliant but Worth the Read.......2004-05-06
Like so many elements of history, there is rampant ignorance or misunderstanding among the American public regarding the origins of our Constitution. Sadly, a significant majority surely have no concept whatsoever of the failed initial attempt at a United States government. More significantly, among the historically literate outside academic circles, there has been a common misperception of our Framers as a set of omniscient statesmen who shared a clear view of the ideal government and crafted a structure that remains unchanged in its essentials to this day. The purpose of Berkin's book is, through a focus on the papers of constitutional convention delegates, to provide insight into the reality behind these myths.
Her theses can be summarized primarily as follows: 1) the process by which the constitution was written was one involving sharply differing views, particularly as to the sharing of power between the individual states and the national government, substantial uncertainty and pessimism regarding the document's capacity to forestall tyranny and a great deal of compromise from strongly held principles, and 2) the character of the current US federal government would astonish the Framers in certain areas, most notably in the greatly expanded powers of the presidency.
Berkin makes a compelling case for both theses through her narrative discussion of the drivers behind the scheduling of the convention, the twisting progress of debate during the sixteen weeks in session, the fierce fight for ratification by the states and the inauguration of Washington as our first president. The major strength of the work is the illumination of the key roles played by delegates such as Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, James Wilson and Roger Sherman. Interesting anecdotes abound, such as the amorous successes of the one-legged Morris ("He scandalized the convention's proper New Englanders by his open philandering, although he won the admiration of the more worldly New Yorkers and South Carolinians, who marveled at the success in the boudoir of this fleshy middle-aged man hobbled by a wooden leg."), the alcohol-induced tirades of Luther Martin ("The nationalists were fortunate that Luther Martin did not do battle with them in a sober state") and the surprising nervousness of Washington during his inaugural address ("His hands trembling and his voice unsteady, ..." ).
The book is not without its weaknesses. On the quibbling end of the scale, the editing in several places leaves something to be desired. There are several instances of repetitive diction in juxtaposed sentences and the biographical snapshot of Charles Pinckney contains an obvious editing error. A more important shortfall is found in the overall style of the writing. While Berkin writes with admirable clarity and economy, her utilitarian approach lacks the literary style and flair for communicating the drama of great events found in the work of popular historians such as David McCullough and Barbara Tuchman. In those rare cases where she ventures into more dramatic narrative, her effort comes off as somewhat contrived and incongruous with the rest of the work.
Regarding the content of the book, its chief shortfall is the puzzling treatment of the role of Washington in the debates and, more importantly, in the ratification battles. Berkin makes it very clear that Washington privately was keenly supportive of the nationalists' agenda during the debates and of the resulting constitution that was submitted to the states for ratification. She also notes his unparalleled prestige in the fledgling country and the tremendous potential for influence that this implied. Despite this combination, Washington apparently played little or no role in the contentious debates. When, apparently for the first time during the entire sixteen weeks, he finally rises to express an opinion regarding a relatively minor change on the convention's final day, Berkin rather blandly explains that "up until this moment, he had felt his position in the president's (of the convention) chair required his silence." It seems difficult to believe, notwithstanding his procedural scruples, that he did not exert some degree of influence on key issues of disagreement, even if he chose the channel of private conversation and lobbying over public speech. The unexplored issue screams for further attention during the tenuous ratification process. Berkin states that "the usually stoic Washington made no effort to disguise his hopes for ratification. `I never saw him so keen for anything in my Life,' a Virginian told Thomas Jefferson." Yet there is no discussion of his active involvement in the ratification fight. Not even the crucial and hard fought battle in his home state of Virginia, an essential member for a viable United States, appears to have moved him to action. She strongly implies that Washington had the power to ensure approval yet does not explain his apparent unwillingness to do so. This seems an important omission.
Notwithstanding these faults, this is an enjoyable and educational read. It is certain to excite the reader's interest in exploring the lives of some of the more colorful delegates and, at a time when the United States is engaged in a very challenging effort to build a representative constitutional government in Iraq, it provides a reminder of the painful, challenging and contentious birthing process of our own polity.
an engaging and important book.......2004-04-01
Civics class ranked among the most horrendous when I was a student, compared to art studio, gym or field biology. The Federalist Papers seemed like the most stultifying tome one could ever be force-fed. So why would anybody inflict a book on the Constitution upon themselves for fun?
The answer is, because it is the stuff of drama, crucial drama at that. It was not clear that the US would exist after breaking away from Britain, and certainly its lack of a constitution made its prospects seem even more unlikely. Additionally, the original colonies shared few ideals once they had vanquished their common foe. Berkin pulls together these complex forces, shows how they collided, and how a few prescient leaders were able to unite the disparate strands such that we have were able to stand up as a nation. Not a bad achievement in a mere 200-readable page book!
Book Description
The authors have tried to provide some historical context for modern doctrine, and to give at least a brief treatment of less contentious areas of law. They also have tried to show students how these issues pervade constitutional law and to provide students with tools for more intense thinking. The authors start with Brown v. Board of Education and the historical litigation background of that case to generate greater initial enthusiasm in students.
Customer Reviews:
Terrible waste of money.......2007-06-24
I'm just trying to tell you how to save 100 bucks. Don't buy this book. It is nothing special, it's just a book full of Supreme Court cases.
Supreme Court cases are published everywhere, you can type the parties of almost any case into a search engine and get a complete text of a case online for FREE. Some textbooks are assembled in a manner that helps the student understand the most important aspects of a body of law. This book does not do this. All it does is present the cases in an unorganized form. The author doesn't even bother to sum up the current body of Constitutional Law. He just mechanically presents the cases and asks rhetorical questions.
There is no reason for you to dish out a bill to get this worthless book. The analysis between Supreme Court cases is NOT really analysis. The pathetic author just asks rhetorical questions about the ruling and they contribute NOTHING to understanding the body of Constitutional Law.
If you are a student on a budget, don't buy this book. Look at your Constitutional Law class syllabus, see which cases you are discussing, and pull them up on the web.
If you are a trust baby, then buy this book so you can look like part of the crowd. But if you'd rather spend the hundred bucks on something else, then don't waste your money.
Book Description
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.
Customer Reviews:
The Constitution and why none of it matters.......2007-09-17
There's not a lot about the Constitution, per se, in "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution." Most everyone knows the structural stuff -- three branches, elections in November, blah blah -- and the rest ... well, the rest hardly matters anymore.
Thomas Woods has already produced an excellent "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History," but "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" necessarily includes a good deal of history to explain why we've reached that point. The fundamental point of Kevin Gutzman's outstanding book is that "constitutional law" as understood and taught in the US has little if anything to do with the document adopted on September 17, 1787, and ratified by the several states over the next three years. Instead, "constitutional law" is the body of decisions and "interpretations" issued by the Supreme Court and lower courts. It's this idea of "law," and the impact it has had on the republic the founders created, that is the real object of Gutzman's study.
The resulting book is spirited, opinionated, and remarkably informative. Out of more than two centuries of jurisprudence, the author has isolated some important themes and trends. Long after the Federalist Party was dead and buried, John Marshall and his intellectual heirs have succeeded in achieving the arch-Federalist goal, Gutzman argues, of turning a confederation of sovereign states into a centralized nation, and replacing "the authority of elected state governments with the authority of a few lawyers, appointed by a president to positions of lifetime tenure without any check on their power" (p. 86).
Along the way, he introduces us to some key personalities and calls out some important suggested reading. Most importantly, he gives us chapter-and-verse examples of how courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have twisted, distorted, "interpreted," or ignored the clear language of the Constitution to gild judges' own opinions with the luster of "constitutional law."
By making these arguments and charting these trends, Gutzman is taking on generations of America's legal establishment, as well as the received wisdom of most citizens that the word of the federal Supreme Court is final and that's just the way it's supposed to be. A reader who takes Gutzman's work seriously (and she should), may well end up both outraged and convinced that achieving any fundamental change would be an exceptionally Sisyphean task. Certainly it should make her sympathetic to the great American abolitionist and anarchist philosopher Lysander Spooner, who wrote way back in 1870 that "whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Today is Constitution Day. Take a moment to remember what was meant to be, and what could have been.
Short, Easy, and Accurate.......2007-09-09
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is exelent. It gave me a different way to look at a number of court cases I was already familiar with and helped put them in a historical and ideological context. It could use a little more detail on cases and consequences.
Everyone should read this and all of the Pol Incorrect guides.......2007-08-31
Books like this will help American's learn the politically incorrect truth about various subjects without all the revisionist history and skewed garbage from the left. I bought this copy for a gift to a family member in law school. HIGHLY RECOMMEND!!!!
The Constitution vs. the Supreme Court.......2007-08-27
This book is an eye-opener on the impact of the Supreme Court on the history of this country. The book is written with humor and is easy to read. If you think our constitution sets the parameters for our laws, guess again! I liked this well-documented book.
Very insightful but ignores important realities.......2007-08-23
Professor Gutzman has written a very insightful book and I'm inclined to agree with most of his observations but it might have been well to discuss some of the problems that might have arisen had the constitution not been violated. Specifically, he makes a strong argument (with which, in fact, I agree) that the South had every right to secede from the union but he ignores the fact that out of the unconstitutional and misnamed Civil War that folowed, emerged the greatest nation in the history of the world. Granted it was no longer a federation as the framers intended but had we not become the magnificent nation that we did what would have happened in the 20th century? Would we now all be speaking German, or Russian, or perhaps even Japanese? Would free market capitalism have been replaced by a fascist state run economy or perhaps, even worse, incentive stifling communism? While I do decry the fact that the constitution has been repeatedly violated, a question that should be explored is "was it sustainable without modification in the first place?"
Unfortunately the book is marred by Professor Gutzman's reference to the 1860 presidential candidacy of James Buchanan. Most regular readers of U.S. history are aware that James Buchanan was not a candidate in 1860 and had made that fact clear well in advance of the conventions that did select the candidates. Gutzman, as a professor of American History at Connecticut State University, certainly should have known better.
In spite of these drawbacks the book is an excellent and insightful read and well worth a spot on your library shelf.
Book Description
219 years ago you were given the right to practice the religion of your choice. 219 years ago you were given the right to say what you wanted without persecution. 219 years ago it was written that your house and property were secure from unreasonable search and seizure. 219 years ago you were given the right to a public trial. 219 years ago, fifty-five men you will never know sat in a sweltering hot room as they fought and argued for you. 219 years ago you were given your rights as a citizen of the United States.
This fall, as we return again to the ballot box to decide the course of our country’s congressional and state leadership, every voter must find their way back to that room in Philadelphia. Welcome Books is proud to provide a map.
The Constitution of The United States of America, inscribed and illustrated by the master calligrapher Sam Fink, brings to life the issues underlying the triumphs of this abiding document. Originally published in pen and ink for Random House in 1987, Sam has, at the request of Welcome Books, gone back to the original black-and-white art and painted it entirely, creating a full-color masterpiece. Each amendment, each article, each word so thoughtfully placed in the Constitution has been given Sam’s profound touch. With a powerful intelligence and a wonderful sense of humor, he has provided us with an entry point, allowing us to read this essential document better, more clearly.
Welcome Books is honored to present a full-color limited edition of Sam’s startling work as well as a trade edition, exquisitely designed and produced – matching in its manufacture the stunning quality of Sam’s ambition and the gravitas and significance of the original document.
The Constitution of The United States of America is the document we must read again and again. There is no more important document in our country. It is the document we must have an intimate knowledge of. It is the document that we must never forget.
219 years ago, you were entrusted with a living document. Have you kept it safe?
To begin, we must read it. This, Sam, in his direct and unadorned way, respectful and loving, helps us do.
Customer Reviews:
Constitution.......2007-08-27
Not at all what I expected (It's a large picture book) but in excellent condition and delivered in a timely fashion
A most amazing book.......2007-08-13
I had heard about this book from a friend, but couldn't even remember the title. I did a search about an illustrated Constitution book and there it was! Just what I was looking for. I quickly ordered and within 2 days the delivery man was bringing me my book. I am a school library information teacher and love books, the illustrations, text and even the smell of a new book. The illustrations and simple calligraphy letters set this book apart. I would recommend this book to anyone who loves beautiful books.
Something Our Young People Need.......2007-03-16
I recently spoke to group of young people regarding the Constitution of the United States, and I quoted a part of the Constitution which is vauge in difinetion, precisely one could not tell if this section of the Constitution came from the Bill of Rights. Of the thirteen young people I spoke with, none of them could quote anything from the Constitution.
The part of the Constitution I spoke of was the 13th Amendment, which deals with forced servitude. Each thought the Bill of Rights prohibited Slavery, but could not quite tell me anything about the Bill of Rights.
So sad that in our public schools our children are not learning anything about what makes America, "AMERICA". To think History is in the Bullseye of some school boards as a subject we can drop and not harm the value of the education our children receive.
Every household in America should have this book, and if our children are not being taught the principles of the Constitution in school, do so at home. A very good addition to every home library.
Beautifully illustrated.......2007-01-31
I purchased the book for my daughter, who is in law school as a birthday gift. I thought it would be an neat way for her to learn the Constitution and something she could always have for her office.
GREAT CONDITION. QUICK. AS PROMISED........2007-01-12
BEAUTIFUL BOOK. AS PROMISED. QUICK DELIVERY. GOOD EXCHANGE WITH SELLER
Book Description
This book focuses on gender and civic membership in American constitutional politics from the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment through Second Wave Feminism. It examines how American civic membership is gendered, and how the terms of civic membership available to men and women shape their political identities, aspirations, and behavior. The book also explores the dynamics of American constitutional development through a focus on civic membership—a legal and political construct at the heart of the constitutional order.
This is a book about gender politics and constitutional development, and about what each of these can tell us about the other. It considers the options and choices faced by women’s rights activists in the United States as they voiced their claims for civic inclusion from Reconstruction through Second Wave Feminism, and it makes evident the limits of liberal citizenship for women.
Book Description
This is the first major interpretation of the framing of the Constitution to appear in more than two decades. Forrest McDonald, widely considered one of the foremost historians of the Constitution and of the early national period, reconstructs the intellectual world of the Founding Fathers--including their understanding of law, history political philosophy, and political economy, and their firsthand experience in public affairs--and then analyzes their behavior in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in light of that world. No one has attempted to do so on such a scale before. McDonald's principal conclusion is that, though the Framers brought a variety of ideological and philosophical positions to bear upon their task of building a "new order of the ages," they were guided primarily by theiy own experience, their wisdom, and their common sense.
Customer Reviews:
Nice look at the origins of the Constitution.......2007-06-07
Forrest McDonald has written some exciting work on the Constitutional era in American history. "Novus Ordo Seclorum" lives up to earlier works.
First, what does he mean by the Latin phrase that is the book's title? One translation might be "a new order of the ages" (page 262). Of this, McDonald says that (page 262):
"So it was that the Framers brought a vast knowledge of history and the whole long tradition of civic humanism with them to Philadelphia in May of 1787, and that they departed four months later having fashioned a frame of government that necessitated a redefinition of most of the terms in which the theory and ideology of civic humanism had been discussed."
McDonald notes that for this "new order," four sets of considerations were important for the Framers as they deliberated upon a new framework for governing, as they moved from the flawed Articles of Confederation to some form that would be more effective. Among these guidelines:
1. Protecting (page 3) "the lives, liberty, and property of the citizenry."
2. A commitment to republicanism (including a role for the people, representative institutions, a distrust of direct democracy.
3. History--including ancient Greece and Rome, prior confederations, and the development of English representative institutions.
4. Political theory, including the works of David Hume, James Harrington, John Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, and so on.
One important feature of the debates was, as John Jay and others put it, a sense of urgency. There was a sense that of the Americans could not make republicanism work, then (page 183) "it would not be likely to be tried again anywhere else." There was a sense that the time was special and that the United States could be a model.
This is a very nice work addressing the origins of the Constitution, what was at stake, what went into the debates and the structure of the Constitution.
Slow going.......2007-04-15
No page turner, it is still a good look at the founding era....
A very specific work on the philosophical origins of the Constitution.......2006-12-09
Novus Ordo Seclorum is a very specific and academic read on the intellectual origins of the Constitution. Forrest McDonald, in what can only be described as a marvelously researched and specifically footnoted text, digs extraordinarily deep as he seeks out the philosophies and the readings of our framers and they sought to construct a more cohesive nation from an obviously failing and loosely assemble group of sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation. His research and range of knowledge is, at times, daunting. This is a work that is not easily read the first time and one that most, if not all, with an interest in this topic, will pull off their shelves through the years as a reference to further readings. A word of caution - this book should only be read by those who have a significant interest in a deep and academic research into this very specific topic. That said, simply wonderful historical research.
"the capstone of a fine career".......2006-08-10
This book is actually the third of a sort of trilogy, begun with "We the People..." in 1958. It should be no surprise that Mc Donald thinks little of Charles Beard. In his earlier work (mentioned above) he did a great deal to discredit Beard's thesis that the founders created the Constitution in order to increase the values of the gov't securities that they held. He followed this in 1965 with "E Pluribus Unum", a work about the political wheeling and dealing that was behind the creation of, and opposition to, the Constitution. He turned his attention to the ideas that were important to the framers in "Novus Ordo Seclorum" in order to finish his career-spanning look at the basis of our government. I my view, the best thing about this book is the way that it is systematically put together. McDonald states the problem clearly early on, and then proceeds to analyze it step-by-step. His placing of the framing of the Constitution in its broader English context is outstanding, as is his discussion of the political and economic theory that the founders had available. But McDonald also makes it abundantly clear that the framers were no ivory tower theoreticians. They were pragmatic, hardnosed political realists who had a good grounding in the best available theory of their day. That combination of theoretical grounding and practical experience has always seemed to me to be the reason that the Constitution was so well crafted and enduring, and McDonald brings that out quite clearly. On another note, McDonald was characterized above as a "conservative historian". It is true that he has supported conservative causes and taken conservative stances throughout his career, but that seems to be beside the point here. McDonald was writing in an attempt to gain understanding about the framing of the Constitution, not to influence current political debate. To often today we look to the founders to resolve our current controversies. As a result people on both sides of the political spectrum have politicized our history in a way that I think leads to an impoverishment of understanding. I admire McDonald for trying to keep the scholarly ideal of detatchment in view, and doing the best he could to live up to it.
MJD.......2006-02-28
For those who are interested in US history and the origins of the US Constitution, this is a must read. McDonald is an excellent writer and has woven an wonderful outline of the philosophical underpinnings of our Constitution. The last section is particularly interesting. He goes through the debates during the summer of 1787. Many of the founders discussions are topical today, especially regarding the authority given to the executive and legislative branch. The book takes a bit to get into but is well worth it. For readers just into this exciting topic a good read before tackling this work might be Katherine Bowen's, "Miracle at Philadelphia."
Book Description
Americans are deeply divided over the Second Amendment. Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns. Others, that it does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. Now, in the first and only comprehensive history of this bitter controversy, Saul Cornell proves conclusively that both sides are wrong. Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia. He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century. The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the nineteenth century, during America's first and now largely forgotten gun violence crisis, when the earliest gun control laws were passed and the first cases on the right to bear arms came before the courts. Equally important, he describes how the gun control battle took on a new urgency during Reconstruction, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over the meaning of the right to bear arms and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment. When the Democrats defeated the Republicans, it elevated the "collective rights" theory to preeminence and set the terms for constitutional debate over this issue for the next century. A Well-Regulated Militia not only restores the lost meaning of the original Second Amendment, but it provides a clear historical road map that charts how we have arrived at our current impasse over guns. For anyone interested in understanding the great American gun debate, this is a must read.
Customer Reviews:
Incomplete and Misleading.......2007-08-02
While I will not dispute the historical facts that Cornell discusses in his book, he clearly decides to ignore many other historical facts that go against his predetermined position. For example, he cites to statements from Tench Coxe (one of our Founding Fathers), but omits his most telling quote: "The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Towards the end of his book, he completely misinterprets several court cases, attributing rulings to them that are not made, and ignores many other cases that tend to support an indiviudal right to keep and bear arms. While the book is easy to understand, it was clearly written with an agenda, not as a balanced piece to try to logically determine the truth. Those who do not know all of the facts will be grossly misled by this book, as it sounds plausable and complete on its face. However, the absence of much relevant information does not serve those who are looking for the actual truth on this issue.
basic individual rights are not that complicated.......2007-05-08
Interestingly, in a recent decision, the court of appeals for the district of columbia reviewed and analyzed in large part the same history and background that Cornell uses, and came up with the conclusion that the Second Amendment unequivocally protects the individual's right to keep and bear arms. The court's opinion was based largely on and consistent with a number of liberal jurists that have come to agree with the 'individual rights' principle. In addition, use of basic legal constructs can come only to the same conclusion-- the 'militia' clause is prefatory, not operative. The 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' is operative, and therefore controlling. The operative clause speaks of a "right", a right being bestowed by the Creator, of the "people", who are individuals (as they are in the first amendment where the "people" is used), and the right is to KEEP, not just BEAR, arms. "Regulated" in colonial times meant "functional", not controlled by the goverment in a heavy handed way. Additionally, the prefatory "militia" clause is not directed at the security of "the State", but the security of " A FREE state"-- the state of freedom, the condition of freedom-- this is consistent with the Framer's view that a people have the right to overthrow a government that exercises tyranny over its citizens, and that an armed population was an important check against over-expansive governmental power. The court further pointed out that if the Framers, who were intelligent men who knew how the draft, merely intended to protect the States' power to have a militia, they would have written 'The States shall have the right to maintain militias", period.
Unlike Cornell, liberal jurists Laurence Tribe, Akhil Reed Amar and Sanford Levinson are independent researchers who came to their conclusions through unbiased research and legal analysis. As a grantee of the Joyce Foundation, Cornell framed his analysis according to his grantor's agenda. He knows where his bread is buttered.
Do yourself a favor and get a hold of "The Second Amendment Primer". The principle of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is really not as complicated as Cornell would like to make it seem.The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen's Guidebook to the History, Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.The Slaves Shall Serve: Meditations on Liberty
another anti-scholarly sham from the anti gun left.......2007-04-20
the problem with this book and with Cornell's alleged scholarship is that he ignored the individual aspect of the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment. The founding fathers intended the right to be civic and an individual right. Cornell misses "who" exactly the militia is? Cornell already knew what his conclusion was prior to authoring the book. He also downplays his support from the Joyce Foundation which has given him many grants at OSU and funded his research. Saul Cornell is a cleverer Michael Bellesiles.
The History of the Second Amendment.......2007-04-11
In "A Well Regulated Militia" Saul Cornell gives an excellent history of the second amendment from the days of the founding fathers, early days of the United States, the Civil War and after, and the gradual development of the gun control and gun rights factions. Gun control folks focus on the first part of the Second Amendment; gun rights folks on the second part. Cornell explains how the courts have applied the Second and Fourteenth Amendments using a principle of ruling as narrowly as possible. The weak part of the book is the final chapter "Conclusion". One would like to think that the conclusion follows from the preceding chapters, but Cornell just sort of throws in his thoughts for a solution. But the answer rests not merely from history, but from an understanding of the current sociology of the country, from an analysis of crime in American, and from a comparison with other nations that have chosen a different path in gun control. The conclusion aside, it is a book well worth reading.
A Wonderful Book.......2006-12-05
One of Cornell's most important points is that service in a state militia at the time of the Founding Fathers WAS a highly regulated enterprise. It was a duty as much as a right - you were required to muster, train, drill; the units were led by an organized officer core; state officials knew who was a member and therefore who owned private firearms; and there were penalties for noncompliance for the select group of individuals who participated (usually white, property-owning males between the ages of 18 and 45).
This type of regulation and oversight would be anathema to the NRA today. They still want to hoodwink us into believing that the Second Amendment gives private citizens the right to run around with their guns and take action when they believe a "tyranny" has risen in Washington. Scary...it's the same mentality taken that was to its logical conclusion by our own most infamous homegrown terrorist, Timothy McVeigh.
Cornell's book makes a farce of such claims, and shows that the NRA would never seek a return to the true concept of the Second Amendment as laid out by the Founders.
Book Description
An examination of what is entailed by pledging allegiance to a constitutional text and tradition saturated with concessions to evil. The Constitution of the United States was originally understood as an effort to mediate controversies between persons who disputed fundamental values, and did not offer a vision of good society. In order to form a ‘more perfect union’ with slaveholders, late eighteenth century citizens fashioned a constitution that plainly compelled some injustices and was silent or ambiguous on other questions of fundamental right. This constitutional relationship could survive only as long as a bisectional consensus was required to resolve all constitutional questions not settled in 1787. Dred Scott challenges persons committed to human freedom to determine whether antislavery northerners should have provided more accommodations for slavery than were constitutionally strictly necessary or risked the enormous destruction of life and property that preceded Lincoln's new birth of freedom.
Customer Reviews:
Problematic analytical tools hurt value of this book.......2006-11-20
This is an interesting effort to revive the horrible historical reputation of the dreadful Dred Scott decision. Although well researched and written in a smooth style, I question the use of 20th and 21st Century contract law analysis to criticize Lincoln's view of slavery restriction in the territories. Also, Graber limits his view of Madison's thoughts on slavery in the territories to the period around the Missouri Compromise. Later in life, Madison did accept that the Constitution provided Congress with the legislative discretion to ban slavery there. Graber appears to argue throughout the book that the Constitution required compromise on the slavery issue. Congress had the right to ban slavery there and nothing in the Constitution limited citizenship to whites. Just because the people of the time were divided on both notions does not mean that such public opinion is controlling. Waiting for majorities to catch up on such issues dispels any need for judicial review, does it not? When the slavocracy leaders of the South fought tooth and nail to end the Missouri Compromise, many in the North felt there was no requirement to continue to give in to the South's wishes. Give them Nebraska, they wanted Cuba and Mexico. That's required in the Constitution? Reading this book was worthwhile. I was just disappointed in the penchant of the author to support his views with incomplete or undeveloped arguments. Nice research, subpar analysis.
Average customer rating:
|
The Complete Anti-Federalist
Manufacturer: University Of Chicago Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 General
| 19th Century
| United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Revolution & Founding
| United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Constitutions
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Look Inside History Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Nonfiction Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Reference Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Law
| Boxed Sets
| Formats
| Books
ASIN: 0226775755 |
Book Description
The Complete Anti-Federalist, first published in 1981, contains an unprecedented collection of all the significant pamphlets, newspaper articles and letters, essays, and speeches that were written in opposition to the Constitution during the ratification debate. Storing’s work includes introductions to each entry, along with his own consideration of the Anti-Federalist thought. This new three-volume set includes all the contents of the original seven-volume publication in a convenient, manageable format.
“A work of magnificent scholarship. Publication of these volumes is a civic event of enduring importance.”—Leonard W. Levy, New York Times Book Review
Books:
- Administrative Law: Bureaucracy in a Democracy (3rd Edition)
- American Corrections (with InfoTrac )
- An Introduction to Legal Reasoning (Phoenix Books)
- Antitrust Paradox
- Asset Protection : Concepts and Strategies for Protecting Your Wealth
- Assuming the Risk : The Mavericks, the Lawyers, and the Whistle-Blowers Who Beat Big Tobacco
- Aviation And the Law, 4th ed
- Behind the Wheel Spanish/Complete Illustrated Text/Answer Keys/8 One Hour
- Black Consciousness in South Africa
- Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- The Archer's Tale
- Passage to Dawn
- Frontiers in Biosensorics
- French Intro to Quantum Physics
- Jamestown, Williamsburg, Yorktown: The Official Guide to Americas Historic Triangle
- Medical Terminology for Health Professions
- Horse Heroes: True Stories Of Amazing Horses
- The Ultimate Watercolor Course: Simple Techniques to Paint Like the Pros
- Houses of Parliament: History, Art, Architecture
- Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals
The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution (Stonesong Press Books)
Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787
Miracle At Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May - September 1787
46 Pages: Thomas Paine, Common Sense, and the Turning Point to American Independence
The U.S. Constitution: And Fascinating Facts About It
