|
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides) | 
| Author: Kevin R. C. Gutzman
Publisher: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
Category: Book
List Price: $19.95
Buy New: $13.57
You Save: $6.38 (32%)
Rating:  43 reviews
Sales Rank: 22101
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 272
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 8.7 x 7.2 x 0.7
ISBN: 1596985054
Dewey Decimal Number: 342.7302
EAN: 9781596985056
Publication Date: June 11, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product 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: Read 38 more reviews...
 Nothing like it has ever been written June 12, 2007
147 out of 159 found this review helpful
For what my opinion is worth, this is one of the most important books of the past 25 years. There is absolutely nothing like it, anywhere.
This is not another of the toothless and forgettable laments about the death of the Constitution at the hands of activist judges that we read from time to time from the right-wing pundit class, though of course author Kevin Gutzman decries both of these things. This is a far more sweeping, much more fundamentally devastating indictment of the Supreme Court, of the "legal training" that raises up ever more people to perpetuate its record of dishonesty and usurpation, and of the American regime at large -- which rests on the legal fictions Gutzman shreds in his book.
To those who weep over the Constitution's neglect these past 50 or 100 years, Gutzman shows that defiance of that document has gone on from the beginning, starting in the 1790s. An expert on colonial and early republican Virginia -- and who has been published in all the major professional journals -- Gutzman knows the Virginia ratifying convention inside and out. He knows the promises made to the people, and the assurances that Virginia's ratifiers inserted into that state's ratification instrument. And he shows that Jefferson and his allies were faithful to those principles and promises, and that the so-called Federalists and their present-day apologists (which includes just about everybody) were not.
John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, comes in for some serious scholarly thrashing as well. Marshall is all too typically held up as an idol before conservatives and even libertarians, and he remains a central icon of early American history. For Gutzman, Marshall is an outright opponent -- and a dishonest one at that -- of the legal principles on which the people of the states were promised their new government would be based. Where else can you find such an iconoclastic portrayal?
Gutzman also treats a great many politically incorrect subjects from a constitutional perspective. I won't spoil the surprise by giving everything away, but if you happen to have a thing for being told the truth rather than lies, you'll read and cheer.
It's going to be fun to watch the so-called constitutional lawyers try to attack Gutzman's book. Gutzman, who holds a law degree as well as a Ph.D. in history, is uniquely positioned to parry any such attacks: unlike his opponents he actually knows early American history, not just a string of unfounded Supreme Court decisions purporting to be "constitutional law." (This is one reason, Gutzman says, that "legal training should not be confused with an education.")
Although I was revisiting much familiar ground as I read this book, even I was shocked at how dishonest the federal courts have been over the years. And Gutzman just eviscerates all of it, slashing and burning everything in sight, and holding up the ludicrous series of fictions that pass for "constitutional law" to hilarious derision.
Gutzman isn't supposed to do any of this, of course, since the continuation of the racket depends on popular ignorance. To the legal establishment he is like the man who shouts out in the middle of the show how the magician is really sawing the woman in half.
This book, the most Jeffersonian constitutional history ever written, is an absolute MUST. It will leave you gasping for air.
FINALLY!!! Someone has put it all together June 15, 2007
36 out of 41 found this review helpful
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?
Interesting and Informative June 18, 2007
32 out of 34 found this review helpful
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.
A Must-Read for All Americans June 28, 2007
31 out of 37 found this review helpful
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.
 A good book but it's for the converted June 11, 2007
29 out of 43 found this review helpful
Yes, I got this book, read it, enjoyed it and think it gives reasoned arguments on why the courts and government just "invents" the law. But, this subject is covered in other books, one of the best of the lot is Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws A judge, Andrew P. Napolitano , wrote that book and he gives advise that is legally sound. Note, this book gives gives example after example of the government over reaching its legal authority, just like Napolitano's book. But what are you going to do? Have a war? Get real. Have a voter revolt? Get real. The solutions this book gives are just unworkable. No court will give up its legal authority. That's a fact. Justice Bork, who was rejected by the Supreme court by the US Senate wrote a book called "Slouching towards Gomorrah". While a lot of people don't personally like this book it pretty much captures the future of America. Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline The bottom line is America is going towards a rule of Judges and Lawyers with little imput from voters. What choice do we have?
All in all I like this book. It gives the causal reader an introduction to our out-of-control legal system. It is worth your time.
Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Copyright 2008 BetterEditor.net
| |
