The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides) by Kevin R. C. Gutzman Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $12.38 You Save: $7.57 (38%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides)
Book Review: A Must-Read for All Americans
Summary: 5 Stars
Author and scholar Thomas Wood's review really says it all, and far better than I can. Simply put, this book is a necessary read for all of us. It traces the history of the awful power and capriciousness of the U.S. Supreme Court; it exposes our pathetic and dangerous lack of education and knowledge of the Constitution; it reminds us of the all-but-forgotten principles of "states' rights"; it correctly notes the ongoing failings of our law schools, which produce endless attorneys virtually ignorant of the Constitution's meaning and intent.
I suggest you read the review by "ZXZXZX" for a few important specifics.
After reading this book you will wonder how much better a country we would have today, how much more freedom we would enjoy, if our national government had chosen to adhere to the Constitution, instead of ignoring and subverting it.
Book Review: Restore the Constitution!
Summary: 5 Stars
Breathtaking! Irrefutable! Erudite! The _Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution_ can help remove the shackles of constitution misinterpretation and error from the thoughtful reader! In a mere 221 pages of entertaining and perceptive text, Dr. Gutzman encourages a major reaffirmation of the American constitutional and political tradition. In other words, if you are a student of law, American politics, political theory, or American history, or a concerned citizen, you can overcome the "myth of [constitutional] incomprehensibility" promoted by professors and pundits alike. The problems that result from studying the Constitution by the "case method" are also exposed.
As a gifted historian and lawyer, Gutzman allows the reader to uncover the genuine and potentially-viable core of the American constitutional tradition: diffused authority. He traces the core tradition from the Colonial Era, to the Declaration of Independence, to the Articles of Confederation, to the Constitutional Convention and equally vital Ratification Period, and onward, while uncovering the litany of errors and false hagiography of previous scholarship (his treatment of James Madison and John Marshall alone are worth the price of the book!).
Most importantly, this book provides a significant critique of just how far we have departed from the American constitutional tradition. Utilizing as many Supreme Court decisions as one would fine in a standard law textbook, but presenting these decisions in a more historically accurate and exceeding readable format, you cannot afford to ignore this book!
H. Lee Cheek, Jr., Ph.D.
www.drleecheek.com
Book Review: Interesting and Informative
Summary: 5 Stars
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is one of the best concise introductions to the Constitution. Dr. Gutzman, who is an expert on early American politics, has condensed two semesters worth of constitutional history into a brief and lively volume. If you have ever wondered how the Supreme Court reaches its decisions, or what relationship those decisions actually bear to the Constitution as ratified by the Founders, this is the book for you. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in constitutional history and especially those who are considering law school. Book Review: From the other side of the aisle
Summary: 5 Stars
I am admittedly far more liberal and "politically correct" than many of the readers this book will initially attract. That should not discourage anyone from engaging with Prof. Gutzman's lively interpretation of the Court and the Constitution. His deep concern about the meaning of law and the ideas which shape this nation make this an outstanding work. I would recommend this to anyone interested in Constitutional history and the debates which inform our understanding of law.Book Review: FINALLY!!! Someone has put it all together
Summary: 5 Stars
Finally someone has written a book which strikes at the core of the illegitimate (unconstitutional) present form of govnerment in the United States. Many attempts to write a book like this have failed. (Though William Watkin's "Reclaiming the American Revolution" would be a good follow up after reading Dr. Gutzman's book as an introduction). Books written by such authors as Andrew Napolitano advocate using federal judicial power to serve "conservative" ends; such as the national "liberty of contract" doctrine the federal courts conjured during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "Liberty of contract" was complete nonsense from a constitutional standpoint (as Dr. Gutzman makes clear). Napolitano would like to see "substantive due process" (based on the 14th amendment-- "ratified" at gunpoint) used for policy purposes he prefers. In this regard, Napolitano's policy based judicial philosophy is akin to the kind of philosophy which Gutzman shows to have destroyed our federal system of government. To my knowledge this is the first book which clearly rips apart the US Supreme Court's "incorporation doctrine," which turned a shield erected by the states against their agent, the "federal" government, into a weapon the federal courts use against the states, the people, and local self-government.
Two key things Dr. Gutzman left out of his "incorporation doctrine" discussion are (i) the preamble to the bill of rights, (ii) a discussion of the 9th amendment, and (iii) the lost history of the 9th amendment.
(i) According to the preamble to the federal bill of rights, "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution." So essentially, the bill of rights was put in place "to prevent misconstruction or abuse" of federal power. Though Dr. Gutzman doesn't specifically mention the preamble, he does a masterful job of explaining that the bill of rights is only supposed to protect individual liberties from interference by the federal government by making clear that Congress can only pass laws pursuant to its enumerated delegation of legislative power spelled out in Article I Section VIII. The states wanted to reserve power, not to grant additional power to the fed. As Dr. Gutzman also shows, the 14th Amendment, despite not being ratified pursuant to Article V, did nothing to change the plain meaning of the bill of rights.
(ii) Dr. Gutzman focuses plenty on the 10th amendment, which Jefferson considered the "cornerstone" of the Constitution, but he seems to neglect the 9th amendment. The 9th basically says that just because certain rights have been listed in the first 8 amendments does not mean that other rights are not also protected from federal interference. To illustrate, the 2nd amendment was put in place because of what happened yesterday (June 13, 2007- the US House passed a law placing new restrictions on gun owners). This gun law is not "necessary and proper to carry into execution" any of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress. The 2nd amendment, in lehman's terms, says, Congress, you don't have authority to pass restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Just so that you (Congress) don't get any crazy ideas, you're explictly barred from passing this law by the 2nd amendment. The 9th amendment would protect the right to bear arms from federal interference if the 2nd amendment didn't exist. The 9th and 10th amendments were really meant to work together to make it clear that Congress is strictly restricted to its enumerated powers. If Congress wanted more legislative power, Congress would have to ask for the power and the states would have to delegate that power (pursuant to Article V).
(iii) In brief, 12 amendments were sent out to the states in 1791, but only 10 were ratified. The 9th Amendment was originally called "Article the eleventh" since it was #11 in the list of 12. There was extensive early case law on the 9th amendment, but it was still referred to as "article the eleventh" in those days. When Gutzman discusses the destructive effect of court decisions from the 1960s, the Supreme Court couldn't find case law on the 9th amendment. Believing that there was a clean slate on 9th amendment law, the Supreme Court felt that it could create law. This sad accident of legal history isn't mentioned in Gutzman's book, but it has been studied extensively by Kurt Lash.
-----------------------------
From the fraudulent reassurances which the so-called "Federalists" perpetrated on the state ratification conventions, to John Marshall's destructive nationalist agenda, to the War for Southern Independence, to the consolidation of all power in Washington DC during the 1930s via the destruction of the commerce clause, through the court's arbitrary decisions of the 1960s--- Dr. Gutzman puts together the most objective and historically accurate introduction available for those interested in learning why things in Washington don't seem to make sense.
After reading this excellent book, you might find yourself filled with a desire to see the Supreme Court building razed to the ground. However, the only real solution to the problem of judicial (and federal) usurpation is through the threat of secession. Jefferson warned that if the federal government was made the final judge of its own powers that the federal government, and not the constitution, would be the supreme law of the land. Jefferson was right. The Declaration of Independence explains how to fix things... but in the meantime a good initial step in righting the ship (other than repealing the 16th and 17th amendments) would be to elect Dr. Ron Paul as President. Maybe Dr. Gutzman should run as his Vice-President?