The History Book Club discussion

My understanding, also, is that each bill introduced will have to carry a citation to which part of the Constitution is applicable. Ostensibly, no longer will bills come forward that the author cannot state how it is specifically allowed under the Constitution.



I liked the part where it says But Amar added: “My disagreement is when we actually read the Constitution as a whole, it doesn’t say what the tea party folks think it says.

Amar argues that the Constitution charters a “very broad federal power” and is not the narrow states’ rights document that tea party activists present it as.

Bentley wrote: "Elizabeth they made a point of saying that the constitution did not have deletions but voted for amendments; that it was amended. Actually, the Constitution was read in 2010 from what I have been reading but this is the first time in its entirety. I am not sure that a televised presentation is a worthwhile exercise for two hours; but I will let each taxpayer decide that one for themselves. "

Some amendments deleted parts of the Constitution. For instance, the part that says Senators are elected by State legislatures, has been deleted and replaced by their direct election. Perhaps you like the word superseded better, but I think the meaning is the same. Still, it would have been silly to read that part about their being elected by state legislatures.

There is lots that goes on in our House and Senate that gets televised even when no one is in the House or Senate listening. Members get up and just drone on and on, often, I think, just to hear the sounds of their beautiful voices.

By the way, CSpan is not supported by tax dollars, it is privately funded by cable companies.

Corporate Information
C-SPAN is a private, non-profit company, created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a public service. Our mission is to provide public access to the political process. C-SPAN receives no government funding; operations are funded by fees paid by cable and satellite affiliates who carry C-SPAN programming.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "My understanding, also, is that each bill introduced will have to carry a citation to which part of the Constitution is applicable. Ostensibly, no longer will bills come forward that the author can..."
To me that is overkill and grandstanding; but I guess that is why we live in a republic where folks can have different views. Well, I see your point Elizabeth about the Constitution not saying what the tea party folks think it says. Since its inception the Constitution seems to have been interpreted according to one's way of thinking. Probably because it seems so broad and open to interpretation; it seems to attract wild and far reaching misinterpretations.

As far as the word deleted or superseded; I referred strictly to the recording and the interpretation that was supplied by the Republicans when stating that the Constitution did not have any deleted parts but amended segments. Of course, even that word is open to interpretation as we can see here on this thread; but the reference is to the video and the first segment of what transpired and what is said.

I also agree that maybe it would have been silly to read the amended parts but then again; it would have been nice to read the Constitution in its unadulterated state and then state that these are the amendments to that language and point out the differences to the American people. It helps show how far we have come as a nation in terms of recognizing the worth of all men (those of color) and other minorities including women.

Yes, it is sad to see an empty chamber and folks just pontificating, grandstanding and just making a spectacle of themselves for the television camera.

Good point Becky, thank you for that add.

I, for one, love to see focus on the Constitution since I think it is a worthwhile and important topic.

It's interesting to wonder for whose benefit was this particular reading of the Constitution. I think it was a reminder to us all, but particularly to the lawmakers themselves, that that living document is the law of the land. Civics was a requirement for high school graduation where I went to school, but frankly, I don't remember actually reading the entire document from start to finish. We studied it's implementation mostly, how a bill becomes law and the purpose of the three branches. I wonder if that sort of course is still a graduation requirement in most schools now.

I doubt it Elizabeth...and I think it is a shame that it is not.

This looks like an interesting analysis. Judge Posner is widely respected.
by Richard A. Posner
Eavesdropping on the phone calls of U.S. citizens; demands by the FBI for records of library borrowings; establishment of military tribunals to try suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens—many of the measures taken by the Bush administration since 9/11 have sparked heated protests. In Not a Suicide Pact, Judge Richard A. Posner offers a cogent and elegant response to these protests, arguing that personal liberty must be balanced with public safety in the face of grave national danger.

Critical of civil libertarians who balk at any curtailment of their rights, even in the face of an unprecedented terrorist threat in an era of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, Posner takes a fresh look at the most important constitutional issues that have arisen since 9/11. These issues include the constitutional rights of terrorist suspects (whether American citizens or not) to habeas corpus and due process, and their rights against brutal interrogation (including torture) and searches based on less than probable cause. Posner argues that terrorist activity is sui generis—it is neither "war" nor "crime"—and it demands a tailored response, one that gives terror suspects fewer constitutional rights than persons suspected of ordinary criminal activity. Constitutional law must remain fluid, protean, and responsive to the pressure of contemporary events. Posner stresses the limits of law in regulating national security measures and underscores the paradoxical need to recognize a category of government conduct that is at once illegal and morally obligatory.

One of America's top legal thinkers, Posner does not pull punches. He offers readers a short, sharp book with a strong point of view that is certain to generate much debate.

OXFORD'S NEW INALIENABLE RIGHTS SERIES

This is inaugural volume in Oxford's new fourteen-book Inalienable Rights Series. Each book will be a short, analytically sharp exploration of a particular right—to bear arms, to religious freedom, to free speech—clarifying the issues swirling around these rights and challenging us to rethink our most cherished freedoms.

One Supreme Court Justice's views.
by Stephen Breyer
PA brilliant new approach to the Constitution and courts of the United States by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.PFor Justice Breyer, the Constitution#8217;s primary role is to preserve and encourage what he calls #8220;active liberty#8221;#58; citizen participation in shaping government and its laws. As this book argues, promoting active liberty requires judicial modesty and deference to Congress; it also means recognizing the changing needs and demands of the populace. Indeed, the Constitution#8217;s lasting brilliance is that its principles may be adapted to cope with unanticipated situations, and Breyer makes a powerful case against treating it as a static guide intended for a world that is dead and gone. Using contemporary examples from federalism to privacy to affirmative action, this is a vital contribution to the ongoing debate over the role and power of our courts.

This looks interesting, a book on free speech and the first amendment.

by Ron K.L. Collins
In a stinging dissent to a 1961 Supreme Court decision that allowed the Illinois state bar to deny admission to prospective lawyers if they refused to answer political questions, Justice Hugo Black closed with the memorable line, "We must not be afraid to be free." Black saw the First Amendment as the foundation of American freedom - the guarantor of all other Constitutional rights. Yet since free speech is by nature unruly, people fear it. Consequently, the impulse to curb or limit it has been a constant danger throughout American history. In We Must Not Be Afraid to Be Free, two of America's leading free speech scholar-activists, Ron Collins and Sam Chaltain, provide an authoritative history of free speech in modern America. Each chapter is an engaging narrative account of a landmark First Amendment case that foregrounds the colorful people involved-judges, plaintiffs, attorneys, defendants-and the issue at stake. Cumulatively, the chapters provide a definitive account of how the First Amendment evolved over the course of a century. Tracing the development of free speech rights from a more restrictive era-the early twentieth century-through the Warren Court revolution of the 1960s and up to the current post 9/11 era of heightened security concerns, Collins and Chaltain not only cover the history of an ideal, but explain in accessible language how the law surrounding the ideal transformed. Essential for anyone interested in this most essential of rights, We Must Not Be Afraid to Be Free will be a standard work on free speech for years to come.

Thank you Alisa for your adds.

October 9, 2011 (NPR) - Justices Get Candid About The Constitution
by ANDREA SEABROOK

October 9, 2011

Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer are legal opposites, but by no means opponents. That became clear as they testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee last week. Among the topics of discussion was the granddaddy of all legal debates: how to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Scalia is a staunch conservative, what he calls an "originalist." He believes judges should determine the framers' original intent in the words of the constitution, and hew strictly to it.

On the other hand, Justice Breyer is often called a liberal, or a pragmatist. He believes in what he calls the "living Constitution," the idea that the values outlined by the framers must be molded to apply to our modern society.

In a rare moment, the two justices appeared before the Senate Committee Wednesday for a hearing about the role of judges under the Constitution. For one thing, Breyer said, every judge has the same challenge in every case.

"The hardest problem in real cases is that the words 'life,' 'liberty' or 'property' do not explain themselves. Nor does the freedom of speech say specifically what counts as 'the freedom of speech,'" he said.

Especially in this new century, Breyer said, the freedom of speech and the right to privacy are constantly shifting, as modern forms of communication flourish. Breyer said he searches the Constitution for the underlying values, which he calls "ancient values."

"Trying to apply this Constitution — with those values underlying the words — to circumstances that are continuously changing is not something that can be done by a computer," he said. "Neither of us thinks that. No one thinks that, and therefore it calls for human judgment."

That's the idea of the "living Constitution" — this set of ancient values that grows and stays relevant through time. It's an idea that makes Scalia really uncomfortable.

"I have no problem with applying ancient values as they were understood at the time to new modern circumstances. Originalism doesn't mean that the radio is not covered by the First Amendment," Scalia said, "but what originalism suggests is that as to those phenomenon that existed at the time, the understanding of the society as to what the Constitution prohibited — at that time — subsists."

Scalia said he tries to figure out how the framers themselves understood the rights they outlined, and then carry those forward to today. Anything beyond that, he said, would be drafting new rights into the Constitution.

"I don't trust myself to be a good interpreter of what modern American values are. I have very little contact with the American people, I'm sorry to say. You do, and the members of the House probably even more," Scalia said. "So if you want to keep the Constitution up to date with current American values, you ought to decide what it means, and you can kiss us goodbye."

Then Breyer actually helped Scalia make an argument, explaining Scalia's worry that Breyer will end up substituting what he thinks is right for what the Constitution actually says.

"What I say is, yes, you are right about that — and all I can do is be on my guard, write my opinions, try to look to objective circumstances," Breyer said, "and I see the opposite danger — the opposite danger is called rigidity. The opposite danger is interpreting those words in a way that they will no longer work for a country of 308 million Americans who are living in the 21st century — work in the way those framers would have wanted them to work had they been able to understand our society."

Then, in a moment of remarkable collegiality, the liberal justice prompted Scalia to make an argument Breyer knew would trump what he had just said. He reminded Scalia about a familiar joke.

Two old friends are camping, Scalia said. When a great, big grizzly bear comes after them, the slower, pudgier friend says they will never outrun the bear. The friend running in front says, "I don't have to outrun that bear. I just have to outrun you."

"It's the same thing with originalism — I just have to show it's better than his [idea]," Scalia said.

It was clear the two justices had debated this hundreds of times. Wednesday's argument just happened to take place before a group of powerful senators. Because of that, the session became a kind of master class in the philosophy of law — and the art of "comity."



Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer (left) and Antonin Scalia testify during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday. The justices showed that while they are legal opposites, they are by no means opponents.


Here is the audio link: (2011)



Luckily, Fora has the entire discussion: (The Federalist Society Forum - the other was in front of the Senate Judicial Committee) - Well they are different - Fora's is dated 2006

Interesting, I want to say I have heard them debate this in another public forum within the last year. Great article and post Bentley.

Glad you liked it. But they were different venues and times. Fora had publicized a previous debate at The Federalist Society in 2006; whereas this was before the Senate Judicial Committee last week.

Having just joined this discussion I have not had time to read everything posted so far. But I am wondering, am I correct in thinking that the Tea Party might be the equivalent of the Anti-Federalists?

I don't know whether that is really true either Jackie; but it is fair to say that they are very suspicious of government so maybe that could be an analogy. I have seen that interpretation in the press. The Anti Federalists were against the ratification of the present Constitution; and I have heard many tea partiers arguing not that the Constitution was at fault but that folks were not interpreting the Constitution the way the original founding fathers meant it to be interpreted (so go figure).

I would think they would need to read the Federalist papers then, as I think that would explain at least 3 of the founding fathers thoughts in more detail.

This sounds interesting:

A Machine That Would Go of Itself: The Constitution in American Culture

by Michael Kammen

synopsis
A timely historical survey of American lay thought and attitude toward the Constitution from the 1780s to the present by Pulitzer Prize-winner Kammen ( People of Paradox ). With a mix of reverence and ignorance, Americans have fashioned a constitutional pattern of conflict within consensus. Kammen traces this pattern: initial ambiguity, slow emergence as a national symbol, conflict and the Civil War, etc., accelerating change after 1940. Throughout he emphasizes the role of the Supreme Court. Past constitutional anniversary celebrations provide a fascinating perspective on the upcoming fete. As Kammen notes, the Constitution has not been a popular topic. But with the bicentennial so near (1987), this wide-ranging scholarly account, which breaks new ground yet is suitable for general readers, should be in most libraries.--Library Journal

A wonderful book on what the founders wanted from the constitution; I haven't read it in many years, so I don't recall details.

by Michael Kammen (no photo)

Nice, Peter, a good addition.

Thank you Peter.

Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution
by Woody Holton

Synopsis
Average Americans Were the True Framers of the Constitution
Woody Holton upends what we think we know of the Constitution’s origins by telling the history of the average Americans who challenged the framers of the Constitution and forced on them the revisions that produced the document we now venerate. The framers who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 were determined to reverse America’s post–Revolutionary War slide into democracy. They believed too many middling Americans exercised too much influence over state and national policies. That the framers were only partially successful in curtailing citizen rights is due to the reaction, sometimes violent, of unruly average Americans.

If not to protect civil liberties and the freedom of the people, what motivated the framers? In Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution, Holton provides the startling discovery that the primary purpose of the Constitution was, simply put, to make America more attractive to investment. And the linchpin to that endeavor was taking power away from the states and ultimately away from the people. In an eye-opening interpretation of the Constitution, Holton captures how the same class of Americans that produced Shays’s Rebellion in Massachusetts (and rebellions in damn near every other state) produced the Constitution we now revere.

Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution is a 2007 National Book Award Finalist for Nonfiction.

Thank you Alisa for the add.

Alisa wrote: "Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution
by Woody Holton

Synopsis
Average Americans Were the True Framers of th..."

That is an interesting view on the Constitutional Convention from Woody Holton but it doesn't really fit with the facts. Madison (with Jefferson in Paris urging him on) was the driving force behind the Constitution. People were ostensibly drawn to the convention to revise the Articles of Confederation. Madison's design for the final document was more democratic than the document that eventually emerged. He was strongly of the view that the senate should be elected democratically, for example. It was Southern members who influenced the outcome in a more conservative direction. Since the most divisive issue facing the convention was slavery and how they would count for the purpose of Congressional representation, Southerners drove the convention to the right, asitwere. Pauline Maier, who is considered to be THE expert on the Constitution, has several books worth reading. The one most pertinent to this discussion is the one I am citing here. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

Thanks for the add Colleen. You are close on the citation. It is book cover, author photo (when available) and author link. In the case of the above, your citation should look like this:

by Pauline Maier

The book cited above contains information on the Constitutional Convention as well but Bernard Bailyn has also written quite a bit on it. There is another book on the Convention that is very good as well but I cannot recall its title at the moment.

Ok, Gotcha. I will bear that in mind. I am often in a hurry so I will try to slow down. :)

Colleen: close on the last, but just add a author link:

Bernard Bailyn

The Invisible Constitution

by Laurence H. Tribe

Synopsis
As everyone knows, the United States Constitution is a tangible, visible document. Many see it in fact as a sacred text, holding no meaning other than that which is clearly visible on the page. Yet as renowned legal scholar Laurence Tribe shows, what is not written in the Constitution plays a key role in its interpretation. Indeed some of the most contentious Constitutional debates of our time hinge on the extent to which it can admit of divergent readings.

In The Invisible Constitution, Tribe argues that there is an unseen constitution--impalpable but powerful--that accompanies the parchment version. It is the visible document's shadow, its dark matter: always there and possessing some of its key meanings and values despite its absence on the page. As Tribe illustrates, some of our most cherished and widely held beliefs about constitutional rights are not part of the written document, but can only be deduced by piecing together hints and clues from it. Moreover, some passages of the Constitution do not even hold today despite their continuing existence. Amendments may have fundamentally altered what the Constitution originally said about slavery and voting rights, yet the old provisos about each are still in the text, unrevised. Through a variety of historical episodes and key constitutional cases, Tribe brings to life this invisible constitution, showing how it has evolved and how it works. Detailing its invisible structures and principles, Tribe compellingly demonstrates the invisible constitution's existence and operative power.

Remarkably original, keenly perceptive, and written with Tribe's trademark analytical flair, this latest volume in Oxford's Inalienable Rights series offers a new way of understanding many of the central constitutional debates of our time.

Promises to Keep: African-Americans and the Constitutional Order, 1776 to the Present

by Donald G. Nieman

Synopsis
African-Americans have had an ambivalent relationship with the Constitution for more than two hundred years. Throughout most of American history, racist interpretations of the Constitution have sanctioned a legal system supportive of slavery, marked blacks as inferiors, rendered them politically powerless, and denied them justice and access to society's resources. Yet both black and white opponents of slavery and racial subordination--from antebellum abolitionists to twentieth-century civil rights leaders--have found principles in the Constitution that support their demands for freedom, citizenship, and equality.

In Promises to Keep, Donald G. Nieman tells the story of this paradoxical relationship, tracing it from the birth of the Republic to current battles over school segregation, voting rights, and affirmative action. While Nieman examines the devastating effects of constitutionally sanctioned racism on the lives of African-Americans, he also shows how blacks and their white allies have been active agents of constitutional change since the early nineteenth century, forging an egalitarian constitutionalism and using it to press a reluctant nation to honor its long-deferred promise of equality. Compact, lively, and readable, Promises to Keep illuminates the past and offers a fresh perspective on the current debate over civil rights, showing how it too often ignores the tragic history of law and race in America.
This is the first volume of Bicentennial Essays on the Bill of Rights, an important series co-sponsored by the Organization of American Historians and Oxford University Press, under the general editorship of Kermit L. Hall.

Constitutional History of the American Revolution

by John Phillip Reid (no photo)

Synopsis:

Designed for use in courses, this abridged edition of the four-volume Constitutional History of the American Revolution demonstrates how significant constitutional disputes were in instigating the American Revolution. John Phillip Reid addresses the central constitutional issues that divided the American colonists from their English legislators: the authority to tax, the authority to legislate, the security of rights, the nature of law, the foundation of constitutional government in custom and contractarian theory, and the search for a constitutional settlement. Reid's distinctive analysis discusses the irreconcilable nature of this conflict—irreconcilable not because leaders in politics on both sides did not desire a solution, but because the dynamics of constitutional law impeded a solution that permitted the colonies to remain part of the dominions of George III.

Thanks Alisa for the adds.

Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification

by David Waldstreicher (no photo)

Synopsis:

Taking on decades of received wisdom, David Waldstreicher has written the first book to recognize slavery’s place at the heart of the U.S. Constitution. Famously, the Constitution never mentions slavery. And yet, of its eighty-four clauses, six were directly concerned with slaves and the interests of their owners. Five other clauses had implications for slavery that were considered and debated by the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and the citizens of the states during ratification. This “peculiar institution” was not a moral blind spot for America’s otherwise enlightened framers, nor was it the expression of a mere economic interest. Slavery was as important to the making of the Constitution as the Constitution was to the survival of slavery.

By tracing slavery from before the revolution, through the Constitution’s framing, and into the public debate that followed, Waldstreicher rigorously shows that slavery was not only actively discussed behind the closed and locked doors of the Constitutional Convention, but that it was also deftly woven into the Constitution itself. For one thing, slavery was central to the American economy, and since the document set the stage for a national economy, the Constitution could not avoid having implications for slavery. Even more, since the government defined sovereignty over individuals, as well as property in them, discussion of sovereignty led directly to debate over slavery’s place in the new republic.

Finding meaning in silences that have long been ignored, Slavery’s Constitution is a vital and sorely needed contribution to the conversation about the origins, impact, and meaning of our nation’s founding document.

Dark Bargain: Slavery, Profits, and the Struggle for the Constitution

by Lawrence Goldstone

Synopsis:

Lawrence Goldstone throws new light on the framing of the U. S. Constitution in this intriguing chronicle of the Constitutional debates, bringing to life the remarkable range of personalities and rivalries that forged the foundation of our country. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 is generally viewed as dominated by the likes of Madison, Mason, Gouverneur Morris, and a few others; in fact, as Goldstone shows, relative unknowns like Rutledge, Ellsworth, and Sherman took over the debate and forged its eventual outcome. He also reveals how the debate over slavery was not split along North-South lines.

A Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, Politics, and the Constitution in the Early American Republic

by George William Van Cleve (no photo)

Synopsis:

After its early introduction into the English colonies in North America, slavery in the United States lasted as a legal institution until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1865. But increasingly during the contested politics of the early republic, abolitionists cried out that the Constitution itself was a slaveowners’ document, produced to protect and further their rights. A Slaveholders’ Union furthers this unsettling claim by demonstrating once and for all that slavery was indeed an essential part of the foundation of the nascent republic.

In this powerful book, George William Van Cleve demonstrates that the Constitution was pro-slavery in its politics, its economics, and its law. He convincingly shows that the Constitutional provisions protecting slavery were much more than mere “political” compromises—they were integral to the principles of the new nation. By the late 1780s, a majority of Americans wanted to create a strong federal republic that would be capable of expanding into a continental empire. In order for America to become an empire on such a scale, Van Cleve argues, the Southern states had to be willing partners in the endeavor, and the cost of their allegiance was the deliberate long-term protection of slavery by America’s leaders through the nation’s early expansion. Reconsidering the role played by the gradual abolition of slavery in the North, Van Cleve also shows that abolition there was much less progressive in its origins—and had much less influence on slavery’s expansion—than previously thought.

Deftly interweaving historical and political analyses, A Slaveholders’ Union will likely become the definitive explanation of slavery’s persistence and growth—and of its influence on American constitutional development—from the Revolutionary War through the Missouri Compromise of 1821.

This is a cool site, Montpelier, Madison's home, has created a site that includes the constitution, Madison's Journals of the convention, a few other related documents. You can sign in and comment or read the annotations.

The book explore 1o little known parts of the Constituion, tucked away within the 8,000+ words of the document. Interesting.

The Odd Clauses: Undertanding the Consitution Through Ten of Its Most Curious Provisions

by Jay Wexler

Synopsis:

Including its twenty-seven amendments, the Constitution contains about eight thousand words, but the well-known parts make up only a tiny percentage of the entire document. The rest is a hodgepodge of provisions, clauses, and rules, including some historically anachronistic, some absurdly detailed, and some crucially important but too subtle or complex to get popular attention. This book is about constitutional provisions like Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment, the letters of marque and reprisal clause, and the titles of nobility clauses—those that promote key democratic functions in very specific, and therefore seemingly quite odd, ways. Each of the book’s ten chapters shines a much-deserved light on one of the Constitution’s odd clauses—its history, its stories, its controversies, its possible future.

The Odd Clauses puts these intriguing beasts on display and allows them to exhibit their relevance to our lives, our government’s structure, and the integrity of our democracy.

The Original Compromise: What the Constitution's Framers Were Really Thinking

by David Robertson (no photo)

Synopsis:

The eighty-five famous essays by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay--known collectively as the Federalist Papers--comprise the lens through which we typically view the ideas behind the U.S. Constitution. But we are wrong to do so, writes David Brian Robertson, if we really want to know what the Founders were thinking.

In this provocative new account of the framing of the Constitution, Robertson observes that the Federalist Papers represented only one side in a fierce argument that was settled by compromise--in fact, multiple compromises. Drawing on numerous primary sources, Robertson unravels the highly political dynamics that shaped the document. Hamilton and Madison, who hailed from two of the larger states, pursued an ambitious vision of a robust government with broad power. Leaders from smaller states envisioned only a few added powers, sufficient to correct the disastrous weakness of the Articles of Confederation, but not so strong as to threaten the governing systems within their own states. The two sides battled for three arduous months; the Constitution emerged piece by piece, the product of an evolving web of agreements. Robertson examines each contentious debate, including arguments over the balance between the federal government and the states, slavery, war and peace, and much more. In nearly every case, a fractious, piecemeal, and very political process prevailed. In this way, the convention produced a government of separate institutions, each with the will and ability to defend its independence. Majorities would rule, but the Constitution made it very difficult to assemble majorities large enough to let the government act.

Brilliantly argued and deeply researched, this book will change the way we think of "original intent." With a bracing willingness to challenge old pieties, Robertson rescues the political realities that created the government we know today.

This looks like a fabulous book to dive into although I am wondering if Robertson subscribes more to the Anti Federalist point of view. I doubt that we are wrong to look at the Constitution through the collective eyes of Hamilton, Madison and Jay though.

It is true they represented only one side but that was the side that prevailed. I do think this would be an interesting side bar into what the Anti Federalists wanted and how that evolved into
the Constitution. And also the stories behind the compromises made - that would be fascinating - I think I will pick this up.

Thanks Jerome.

Excellent and through review of the book but may I request a brief listing of the book author's qualifications? I would ask that this be done for reviews and comments for all non-fiction books. Knowing whether or not an author has the expected or even required credentials is important, to me, in deciding whether or not to borrow or purchase a book. Thank you very much.

Jane, that is an excellent recommendation if we were working for goodreads or full time employees - but all of the moderators and all of the members are volunteers so we cannot burden folks to do more than they are already doing. The History Book Club insists on the citation and the citation format where you only have to click on the cover to find out more about the book and/or click on the author's photo or link to find out more about the author. After reading both, I did post a veiled warning on the last one posted that it may be more inclined to promote the Anti-Federalists' point of view versus one or ones from the Federalist Papers themselves and Hamilton, Madison and Jay. But that also is all we can do. We also ask that if a novel or historical fiction add is placed on the threads that they are noted as such. I wish we could do more about an author's credentials but we leave that up to the reader to discern and we feel the citations take you to screens so that you can read what others have said about the book on goodreads or elsewhere and make up your own mind. You are right about being a discerning reader and consumer.

Thank you for your response, Bentley. I was thinking more about the type of brief information almost always included on a book jacket about the author than about formal citations. A book jacket for a non-fiction history book that did not include such info would be suspect from the start. Thanks again

You are welcome - most folks including myself go back and forth between iPad reading, Kindle reading, IMac reading and the nice feel of the book itself. Have an extensive collection of books and there is no substitute for that book jacket which I would always remove so as not to endanger it while reading the book (smile).

I understand your comments and they are well founded but with a few clicks on the book cover - it will take you to a variety of other sites where you can check the extensive reviews or what others have to say. Many times on the goodreads site alone - there is not enough to be discerning and I find myself clicking beyond goodreads to find some other data.

But I cannot eliminate or should I eliminate options for those interested in other points of view either so I leave the discernment to the member and hope that they are discerning like yourself. I remember reading a very long time ago a great book at its time - The Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard. Though it is dated now - it was as relevant then as it is now. Although now things are much worse - we have 24x7 entertainment news - prepackaged for us into sound bytes, internet shopping, downloads, the Kindles, the Nooks, the iPhones and iPads, a world which seems to be shrinking and constant bombardment of our senses by technology and media. Discernment takes evaluation and time and many do not take that time. We try to lead the horse to water - but we also do not try to make them drink. Although we are always trying to assist them in making "that educated wise choice".

by Vance Packard (no photo)

Study the US Constitution

Miracle at Philadelphia

by Catherine Drinker Bowen (no photo)

Synopsis:

This book is a history of the Federal Convention in Philadelphia that resulted in the Constitution of the United States.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787

Link to free on line copies of all three volumes:


Synopsis:

Farrand's Records

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787

One of the great scholarly works of the early twentieth century was Max Farrand's The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Published in 1911, Farrand's work gathered the documentary records of the Constitutional Convention into four volumes--three of which are included in this online collection--containing the materials necessary to study the workings of the Constitutional Convention. According to Farrand's introduction, at the close of the convention, the secretary, William Jackson, delivered all the materials to the president of the convention, George Washington, who turned these papers over to the Department of State in 1796. In 1818, Congress ordered that the records be printed, which was done under the supervision of the Secretary of State John Q. Adams, in 1819.

Farrand's Records remains the single best source for discussions of the Constitutional Convention. The notes taken at that time by James Madison, and later revised by him, form the largest single block of material other than the official proceedings. The three volumes also includes notes and letters by many other participants, as well as the various constitutional plans proposed during the convention.

Volume One:

by Max Farrand (no photo)

Volume Two:

by Max Farrand (no photo)

Volume Three:

by Max Farrand (no photo)

More:

The Federal Convention of 1787 engaged in the great and complex labor of framing the constitution for the union of the states. For thirty years afterwards, little was known of its deliberations, and nothing official was published. The variety of versions which began to appear thereafter tended to confuse rather than clarify the situation. When Mr. Farrand undertook the voluminous task of gathering into a single unit all available records which had been written or published by the Convention participants, he found that accuracy became the most important and the most difficult aspect of his task. Yet the accuracy he achieved has proved to be the most significant feature of his undertaking. The thoroughness of his research has made The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 the one most authoritative source for students of constitutional law as well as lawyers and legislators who seek to understand the spirit of the Constitution in their interpretations of its provisions.

The documents are reprinted exactly from the originals and presented in chronological sequence. Throughout Mr. Farrand discriminated carefully between statements of proceedings in the Convention and theoretical interpretations of clauses in the constitution, including only the former in his work. His footnotes provide cross references to the most important subjects and his general index is as exhaustive as possible. He also includes a special index, giving references for every clause in the adopted Constitution to enable the reader to trace the origin and development of any particular clause and to find every item within the Records that bears upon it. Originally published in 1911 in three volumes, the Revised Edition, published in 1937, incorporated in a fourth supplementary volume new material which came to light after the first printing. The Yale University Press is now pleased to announce the publication of the four-volume Revised Edition in paper-bound format.

“Will now be the standard authority on the work of Constitutional convention of 1787.”—New York Times

“Historians and constitutional lawyers have long desired to see all the records that exist of the formation of the Federal constitution, gathered into a record which shall be at once correct, critical, and comprehensive. Their wish is now gratified.” —The Nation

The Framing of the Constitution of the United States

by Max Farrand (no photo)

Synopsis

A brief study of the drafting of the United States Constitution. A classic in its time and a good first place to start.

Chief Justice Burger - C-Span on NOVEMBER 24, 1986

Justice Burger discussed the political philosophy of the nation’s founding fathers, his personal judicial views, and some of the challenges facing U.S. courts. Some very good discussions about the constitution and the history of the constitution.

The Constitution, the Law and Freedom of Expression 1787-1987

by Warren E. Burger

Synopsis:

In recognition of the bicentennial of the Constitution of the United States, former chief justice Warren E. Burger, Justice Antonin Scalia, ACLU president Norman Dorsen, and others delivered papers at the first annual DeWitt Wallace Conference on the Liberal Arts, held at Macalester College, St. Paul. Wideman, Gray, Lifton, and Norton maintain that social forces determine freedom of expression.

Independence on Trial: Foreign Affairs and the Making of the Constitution

by Frederick W. Marks III (no photo)

Synopsis:

In Independence on Trial, Frederick W. Marks III focuses on the impact of foreign affairs and trade, arguing that they had an overwhelming influence in shaping constitutional reform for the founding fathers. He argues that problems relating to the conducting of foreign affairs far outweighed any other issues facing the Confederation and that the Federalist's desire for a more advantageous position in the world was their overriding concern which gave rise to the Constitution.

The Commonsense Rules: Why America Needs a New Constitution

by Paul J. Harrington (no photo)

Synopsis:

September 17, 2014. The Commonsense Rules is an informative, thought-provoking, and inspirational new book by Boston author Paul Harrington, formerly a business executive and practicing attorney. The "rules" are the universal values innate to all people, discoverable by applying reason to truth. These natural rules are the source of our "unalienable rights." The main premise of the book is that the United States is in a serious decline that cannot be reversed without revolutionary changes. The severity of the problems can be proven by applying practical economic theory and basic mathematical formulas to economic and fiscal data. But the underlying causes are rooted in the historical framing and interpretations of the Constitution. And the symptoms are the dysfunctional political and governmental system, poor social services, and growing inequality of income and wealth. The end result will be the default of the federal government on its debt, triggering a domino effect of state and local government defaults, economic collapse, and social disintegration. There is no way to prevent the impending disaster within the existing political system and structure of government, due to an economic and fiscal "catch 22". Solutions to the major problems facing America can be derived from the natural rights identified in the book. Disaster can be averted but only if Americans recognize that real constitutional changes are necessary. The author's answer? A new constitution-formed by applying the "commonsense rules" to the role of government today. He provides his version of one. Poverty can be eliminated, better health care provided, and quality education ensured-for all citizens-while the public debt and deficit problems are solved. The answer is a new economic model called a "rebalancing free market"-different from the types of capitalism, socialism, and mixed economies prevalent today... See more at thecommonsenserules.com