What do you think?
Rate this book
The Odd Clauses: Understanding the Constitution Through Ten of Its Most Curious Provisions
If the United States Constitution were a zoo, and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth amendments were a lion, a giraffe, and a panda bear, respectively, then The Odd Clauses would be a special exhibit of shrews, wombats, and bat-eared foxes. Past the ever-popular monkey house and lion cages, Boston University law professor Jay Wexler leads us on a tour of the lesser-known clauses of the Constitution, the clauses that, like the yeti crab or platypus, rarely draw the big audiences but are worth a closer look. Just as ecologists remind us that even a weird little creature like a shrew can make all the difference between a healthy environment and an unhealthy one, understanding the odd clauses offers readers a healthier appreciation for our constitutional system. With Wexler as your expert guide through this jurisprudence jungle, you’ll see the Constitution like you’ve never seen it before.
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.
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.
248 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2011
42 people are currently reading
603 people want to read
About the author
Jay Wexler
8 books53 followersJay Wexler has taught at the Boston University School of Law since 2001. He studied religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School and law at Stanford, and worked as a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He has published numerous academic articles, essays, and reviews, as well as over three dozen short stories and humor pieces in outlets such as The Boston Globe, Huffington Post, Mental Floss, the New Yorker, Newsweek, Salon, Slate, Spy, and McSweeney's Internet Tendency. Wexler lives in Boston.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
October 14, 2025
Off-the-Beaten Paths In The Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the oldest functioning written constitution in the world. Many Americans become aware of the Constitution and its major provisions when the Supreme Court decides a controversial case in matters involving free speech, civil rights, criminal justice, or other highly visible issues. But the constitution is a working document which established a government, the division of powers in the government, and the relationship of the Federal government to the states. Many of the nuts-and-bolts provisions of the Constitution and its 27 amendments remain obscure even to lawyers who do not work with them on a regular basis. Jay Wexler's upcoming book "The Odd Clauses: Understanding the Constitution through ten of its most Curious Provisions" (2011) offers a tour of some of the provisions of the Constitution that do not receive a great deal of attention but which remain important to understanding the document and American government. Wexler has been a professor at the Boston University School of Law since 2001. He served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg and worked for two years at the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of the Department of Justice. OLC is charged with difficult issues of constitutional interpretation for the government.
In addition to his strong legal credentials, Wexler is a writer and a humorist who has published stories and funny essays. His many talents show in this book but do not always work well together. Although the learning in the book is impressive and well conveyed, the sometimes biting and iconoclastic humor, satire, and the colloquial writing style, full of contemporary slang and street idiom, frequently distracted from the presentation. To take an example out of many, Wexler offers two imagined scenarios of the nine Supreme Court Justices debating one or another legal point. The little scenes are intended to be funny and perhaps succeed. The Justices are not presented as particularly thoughtful individuals, and the scenes do not illuminate the law or the process of decision making. In addition, Wexler is too dogmatically sure of the "right" legal answer and approach in some controversial issues. It is valuable to see an individual learned in the Constitution stake out and defend a position. In this book, however, Wexler sometimes just states his position and brushes aside sharply those who might disagree with or question his conclusions.
With these shortcomings, the book offers valuable insight into the Constitution and into issues of Constitutional interpretation. In each chapter of the book, Wexler takes one of the more obscure constitutional clauses and begins with an incident showing the circumstances in which the clause must be interpreted and applied. He then discusses the history of the clause, including Court decisions that have construed it over the years. Wexler links the clause he discusses to other Federal laws and Constitutional provisions, which offers help both in understanding the clause under discussion and the broader scope of the Constitution. It also gives the book a bit of a wandering approach which is appealing. At the end of each chapter, Wexler indicates how the issue with which he began the chapter was resolved, if it was, and offers his own thoughts on the significance of the clause. His conclusions are thoughtful and worthwhile.
The book touches upon issues of Constitutional interpretation. Some of the well-known provisions of the Constitution are notoriously vague, such as the due process or equal protection provisions. Such clauses require much interpretation to be understood. Some of the provisions Wexler discusses are markedly specific. For example, Wexler discusses the Constitutional requirement that an individual must be at least 35 years old to be the President. How do the presence of both specific and vague provisions in the Constitution effect how one interprets the document? Wexler raises the issue, but tries to show how some scholars have argued that even the age requirement in the Constitution is textually indeterminate and means that the person must be of requisite maturity rather than meeting the test of a specific age requirement. Would a person aged 34 and one half qualify to be president? Wexler suggests the issue is debatable. I think Wexler gives more credit to "indeterminate" readings than they deserve, especially when faced with a clear bright-line text.
The ten provisions Wexler discusses serve a variety of purposes, and Wexler explains them well. He discusses an important and uniquely American provision which prohibits holding joint positions in the executive and legislative branches of the government. There are interesting discussions of the metric system, recess appointments, the Supreme Court's power to hear lawsuits between States, the constitutional requirements for presidents (including the well-thrashed out issues of whether President Obama and candidate McCain were natural-born citizens as required by the Constitution), and prohibition, and whether it survived in the 21st amendment which repealed the earlier prohibition amendment. Wexler offers three good chapters on letters of marque (which allows Congress to engage privateers to combat piracy), bills of attainder and the prohibition of titles of nobility. A final chapter examines the third amendment and its provisions against quartering of soldiers. This provision achieved brief notoriety when it was used by Justice Douglas in a 1960's case involving the right to privacy. Wexler offers a commonsense conclusion that the Third Amendment is important precisely because there has been so little litigation about it. It provision against the quartering of soldiers has rarely, if ever, been violated.
Both lay readers and lawyers will gain increased understanding about the Constitution from reading this book. Prior background and familiarity with the document will be valuable. The book may encourage readers to think about the nature of American constitutionalism and, in ways that may not necessarily be Wexler's own, about the nature of Constitutional interpretation.
Robin Friedman
The Constitution of the United States is the oldest functioning written constitution in the world. Many Americans become aware of the Constitution and its major provisions when the Supreme Court decides a controversial case in matters involving free speech, civil rights, criminal justice, or other highly visible issues. But the constitution is a working document which established a government, the division of powers in the government, and the relationship of the Federal government to the states. Many of the nuts-and-bolts provisions of the Constitution and its 27 amendments remain obscure even to lawyers who do not work with them on a regular basis. Jay Wexler's upcoming book "The Odd Clauses: Understanding the Constitution through ten of its most Curious Provisions" (2011) offers a tour of some of the provisions of the Constitution that do not receive a great deal of attention but which remain important to understanding the document and American government. Wexler has been a professor at the Boston University School of Law since 2001. He served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg and worked for two years at the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of the Department of Justice. OLC is charged with difficult issues of constitutional interpretation for the government.
In addition to his strong legal credentials, Wexler is a writer and a humorist who has published stories and funny essays. His many talents show in this book but do not always work well together. Although the learning in the book is impressive and well conveyed, the sometimes biting and iconoclastic humor, satire, and the colloquial writing style, full of contemporary slang and street idiom, frequently distracted from the presentation. To take an example out of many, Wexler offers two imagined scenarios of the nine Supreme Court Justices debating one or another legal point. The little scenes are intended to be funny and perhaps succeed. The Justices are not presented as particularly thoughtful individuals, and the scenes do not illuminate the law or the process of decision making. In addition, Wexler is too dogmatically sure of the "right" legal answer and approach in some controversial issues. It is valuable to see an individual learned in the Constitution stake out and defend a position. In this book, however, Wexler sometimes just states his position and brushes aside sharply those who might disagree with or question his conclusions.
With these shortcomings, the book offers valuable insight into the Constitution and into issues of Constitutional interpretation. In each chapter of the book, Wexler takes one of the more obscure constitutional clauses and begins with an incident showing the circumstances in which the clause must be interpreted and applied. He then discusses the history of the clause, including Court decisions that have construed it over the years. Wexler links the clause he discusses to other Federal laws and Constitutional provisions, which offers help both in understanding the clause under discussion and the broader scope of the Constitution. It also gives the book a bit of a wandering approach which is appealing. At the end of each chapter, Wexler indicates how the issue with which he began the chapter was resolved, if it was, and offers his own thoughts on the significance of the clause. His conclusions are thoughtful and worthwhile.
The book touches upon issues of Constitutional interpretation. Some of the well-known provisions of the Constitution are notoriously vague, such as the due process or equal protection provisions. Such clauses require much interpretation to be understood. Some of the provisions Wexler discusses are markedly specific. For example, Wexler discusses the Constitutional requirement that an individual must be at least 35 years old to be the President. How do the presence of both specific and vague provisions in the Constitution effect how one interprets the document? Wexler raises the issue, but tries to show how some scholars have argued that even the age requirement in the Constitution is textually indeterminate and means that the person must be of requisite maturity rather than meeting the test of a specific age requirement. Would a person aged 34 and one half qualify to be president? Wexler suggests the issue is debatable. I think Wexler gives more credit to "indeterminate" readings than they deserve, especially when faced with a clear bright-line text.
The ten provisions Wexler discusses serve a variety of purposes, and Wexler explains them well. He discusses an important and uniquely American provision which prohibits holding joint positions in the executive and legislative branches of the government. There are interesting discussions of the metric system, recess appointments, the Supreme Court's power to hear lawsuits between States, the constitutional requirements for presidents (including the well-thrashed out issues of whether President Obama and candidate McCain were natural-born citizens as required by the Constitution), and prohibition, and whether it survived in the 21st amendment which repealed the earlier prohibition amendment. Wexler offers three good chapters on letters of marque (which allows Congress to engage privateers to combat piracy), bills of attainder and the prohibition of titles of nobility. A final chapter examines the third amendment and its provisions against quartering of soldiers. This provision achieved brief notoriety when it was used by Justice Douglas in a 1960's case involving the right to privacy. Wexler offers a commonsense conclusion that the Third Amendment is important precisely because there has been so little litigation about it. It provision against the quartering of soldiers has rarely, if ever, been violated.
Both lay readers and lawyers will gain increased understanding about the Constitution from reading this book. Prior background and familiarity with the document will be valuable. The book may encourage readers to think about the nature of American constitutionalism and, in ways that may not necessarily be Wexler's own, about the nature of Constitutional interpretation.
Robin Friedman
November 11, 2017
The author, a lawyer, examines the US Constitution through the examination of ten sections that are relatively unknown to most people. He does color the discussion in light of his personal political views but this is an intriguing look at the Constitution and is well worth reading by anyone interested in American government.
December 7, 2020
The title describes the book pretty well, looking at some of the more obscure areas of the consitution. The descriptions about these clauses and the times the book actually covers the law is pretty interesting, if not completely accessible to people with no background.
I would have liked this book SOOO much more though, if the author wasn't so enamored with his own humor. Every conservative/Republican figure from the 90s and early 2000s gets mentioned in here with some sarcastic aside about their evilness or desire to ruin the country. The jokes aren't even clever or funny! In one instance, instead of writing about how Supreme Court justices voted or their legal reasoning, the author wrote an imagined script of how their discussions went including descriptions of their lunch. Dude, no wants this in here, you're not one of those TV commentators that people come to for these. Deliver the constitutional trivia staidly without the extra helping of potshots at any disagreeing opinion. The only opinions that you wrote that people care about are the ones Justice Ginsburg signed off on.
I would have liked this book SOOO much more though, if the author wasn't so enamored with his own humor. Every conservative/Republican figure from the 90s and early 2000s gets mentioned in here with some sarcastic aside about their evilness or desire to ruin the country. The jokes aren't even clever or funny! In one instance, instead of writing about how Supreme Court justices voted or their legal reasoning, the author wrote an imagined script of how their discussions went including descriptions of their lunch. Dude, no wants this in here, you're not one of those TV commentators that people come to for these. Deliver the constitutional trivia staidly without the extra helping of potshots at any disagreeing opinion. The only opinions that you wrote that people care about are the ones Justice Ginsburg signed off on.
December 22, 2011
Closer to a 3.5, the book is one man's look at some of the more interesting clauses of the Constitution. The interesting thing about viewing the Constitution through its oddities is that it ends up being a lot more than ten of them being covered, but the narrative is free-flowing enough where it pretty much works.
The book's main flaw is the unnecessary editorializing - while the book doesn't take a political point of view per se, Wexler's point of view is expressed more than enough to give a pretty solid viewpoint of his beliefs on a policy, and personal, level. The good news, however, is that it doesn't really bleed into his discussion of the Constitutional clauses themselves, which lend themselves to more of a breezy overview of some of the court cases, the history behind them, and some speculation as to how they would be used in the future.
Overall, a fun, maybe nonessential read. Glad I got it through the Goodreads promotion, worth picking up if you're looking for some light historical nonfiction.
The book's main flaw is the unnecessary editorializing - while the book doesn't take a political point of view per se, Wexler's point of view is expressed more than enough to give a pretty solid viewpoint of his beliefs on a policy, and personal, level. The good news, however, is that it doesn't really bleed into his discussion of the Constitutional clauses themselves, which lend themselves to more of a breezy overview of some of the court cases, the history behind them, and some speculation as to how they would be used in the future.
Overall, a fun, maybe nonessential read. Glad I got it through the Goodreads promotion, worth picking up if you're looking for some light historical nonfiction.
November 17, 2019
This book is at once so witty and educational that I can't not give it five stars.
The wittiness comes in a couple of forms. There is a theme running through the book of imagining the "odd clauses" as if they were animals: you have the First Amendment lion, the Second Amendment grizzly bear... but then you have the Incompatibility Clause as a prairie dog. Similarly, the Declaration of War clause is a crocodile, while the "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" clause is an Egyptian plover picking the meat out of the crocodile's teeth. Further, the "Natural Born Citizen" clause is like an Asian tiger mosquito or a zebra mussel: a pest with no good purpose. Last on this list (and my favorite) is the Third Amendment (quartering) playing a constitutional role like plankton: quietly doing its very important job, eliciting very little comment or recognition. I appreciate the fact that, having fastened on this idea of "the Constitutional Zoo", Wexler doesn't over-use the idea by insisting on an animal analogy at every turn.
The animal analogy angle is used just enough to be entertaining. It is further elevated as more than a mere gimmick by its analogical relevance to one of the over-arching pedagogical themes of the book, that being "thorough understanding of our constitutional system generally." On p.175, then, Wexler caps a discussion of the "Titles of Nobility" clauses by noting how interconnected they are with other clauses, in the sense of their support of general themes: they are about ideas of nobility, yes, but they are also about executive power. Similarly, the original-jurisdiction clause is about judicial powers, but it is also about states' rights. The "Bill of Attainder" clause is about individual liberty, but also about separation of powers. Wexler invokes the animal analogy to posit not just a Constitutional Zoo, but an interconnected Constitutional ecosystem.
Wexler's wit is also revealed in his unapologetic opinionated viewpoints, which recur throughout the book without seeming to render his exposition any less valid. For instance, here he is introducing a discussion of how the "Bill of Attainder" clause was relevant to a Supreme Court challenge to Colorado's "Amendment 2", which abolished sexual orientation as a grounds for protection against discrimination: "here, we will refer to them [people challenging the law] as 'people who believe in goodness rather than badness." The ensuing discussion is about whether the court found the Bill of Attainder clause to be relevant (it didn't), and is not really detracted from by the author's obvious position. (Weirdly, this section marks the third time in the book where Justice Antonin Scalia is hypothesized to have bitten his gavel in half. Writing prior to the death of said Justice, Wexler is clearly not a fan).
As for "educational", within the course of the first chapter I gained the ability to reflect upon (and expound about, to my long-suffering life partner) the principle of separation of powers. One does not find this specific phrase anywhere within the text of the Constitution. It's implicit in the three-article structure outlining the powers of the three government branches. The "Incompatibility Clause", which states that you cannot simultaneously serve as an officer in more than one branch of the government, is one of very few instances where the separation of powers is explicit. Even this seemingly-explicit prohibition is open to interpretation, but there are large entrenched practices within our current federal system that have never been seriously challenged and which could be. One example: the whole "Miranda Rights" thing: it stems from a SC ruling, Miranda vs State of Arizona, and it specifies exactly what police are required to say to a person in custody. Doesn't that specific requirement have the specificity of legislation? How is it that the Judicial branch is able to make this the law of the land, where lawmaking is supposed to be the responsibility of Congress?
Speaking of Congress, in the same vein, is it not in some sense an abrogation of their Constitutional responsibility to create federal agencies (EPA, FCC, TSA, etc etc) that subsequently enact hosts of regulations that have the force of law? This thought is an extension of the discussion surrounding the "Weights and Measures" clause, which states that Congress has the power to regulate weights and measures. So when Congress passed the 1975 Metric Conversion Act, which established the US Metric Board, they were basically punting on their Constitutional responsibilities.
Speculating about the future, it is quite interesting to imagine how some previously "odd and uninteresting" clauses might become elevated in importance. Something like this happened with the 14th amendment Equal Protection clause, which rocketed to prominence with the 1954 Brown v Board of Education decision. Wexler points out that something similar could happen with the "Nobility" clauses: suppose certain biotech conferred heritable biological benefits to those who could afford them; ie, the wealthy. Such a reality could be argued as amounting to an unconstitutional conferral of nobility. Similarly, the "Quartering" amendment could become important in various (somewhat apocalyptic) future scenarios.
The end notes are quite good and are led by some really good recommendations for further reading, some of which I intend to follow up.
The wittiness comes in a couple of forms. There is a theme running through the book of imagining the "odd clauses" as if they were animals: you have the First Amendment lion, the Second Amendment grizzly bear... but then you have the Incompatibility Clause as a prairie dog. Similarly, the Declaration of War clause is a crocodile, while the "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" clause is an Egyptian plover picking the meat out of the crocodile's teeth. Further, the "Natural Born Citizen" clause is like an Asian tiger mosquito or a zebra mussel: a pest with no good purpose. Last on this list (and my favorite) is the Third Amendment (quartering) playing a constitutional role like plankton: quietly doing its very important job, eliciting very little comment or recognition. I appreciate the fact that, having fastened on this idea of "the Constitutional Zoo", Wexler doesn't over-use the idea by insisting on an animal analogy at every turn.
The animal analogy angle is used just enough to be entertaining. It is further elevated as more than a mere gimmick by its analogical relevance to one of the over-arching pedagogical themes of the book, that being "thorough understanding of our constitutional system generally." On p.175, then, Wexler caps a discussion of the "Titles of Nobility" clauses by noting how interconnected they are with other clauses, in the sense of their support of general themes: they are about ideas of nobility, yes, but they are also about executive power. Similarly, the original-jurisdiction clause is about judicial powers, but it is also about states' rights. The "Bill of Attainder" clause is about individual liberty, but also about separation of powers. Wexler invokes the animal analogy to posit not just a Constitutional Zoo, but an interconnected Constitutional ecosystem.
Wexler's wit is also revealed in his unapologetic opinionated viewpoints, which recur throughout the book without seeming to render his exposition any less valid. For instance, here he is introducing a discussion of how the "Bill of Attainder" clause was relevant to a Supreme Court challenge to Colorado's "Amendment 2", which abolished sexual orientation as a grounds for protection against discrimination: "here, we will refer to them [people challenging the law] as 'people who believe in goodness rather than badness." The ensuing discussion is about whether the court found the Bill of Attainder clause to be relevant (it didn't), and is not really detracted from by the author's obvious position. (Weirdly, this section marks the third time in the book where Justice Antonin Scalia is hypothesized to have bitten his gavel in half. Writing prior to the death of said Justice, Wexler is clearly not a fan).
As for "educational", within the course of the first chapter I gained the ability to reflect upon (and expound about, to my long-suffering life partner) the principle of separation of powers. One does not find this specific phrase anywhere within the text of the Constitution. It's implicit in the three-article structure outlining the powers of the three government branches. The "Incompatibility Clause", which states that you cannot simultaneously serve as an officer in more than one branch of the government, is one of very few instances where the separation of powers is explicit. Even this seemingly-explicit prohibition is open to interpretation, but there are large entrenched practices within our current federal system that have never been seriously challenged and which could be. One example: the whole "Miranda Rights" thing: it stems from a SC ruling, Miranda vs State of Arizona, and it specifies exactly what police are required to say to a person in custody. Doesn't that specific requirement have the specificity of legislation? How is it that the Judicial branch is able to make this the law of the land, where lawmaking is supposed to be the responsibility of Congress?
Speaking of Congress, in the same vein, is it not in some sense an abrogation of their Constitutional responsibility to create federal agencies (EPA, FCC, TSA, etc etc) that subsequently enact hosts of regulations that have the force of law? This thought is an extension of the discussion surrounding the "Weights and Measures" clause, which states that Congress has the power to regulate weights and measures. So when Congress passed the 1975 Metric Conversion Act, which established the US Metric Board, they were basically punting on their Constitutional responsibilities.
Speculating about the future, it is quite interesting to imagine how some previously "odd and uninteresting" clauses might become elevated in importance. Something like this happened with the 14th amendment Equal Protection clause, which rocketed to prominence with the 1954 Brown v Board of Education decision. Wexler points out that something similar could happen with the "Nobility" clauses: suppose certain biotech conferred heritable biological benefits to those who could afford them; ie, the wealthy. Such a reality could be argued as amounting to an unconstitutional conferral of nobility. Similarly, the "Quartering" amendment could become important in various (somewhat apocalyptic) future scenarios.
The end notes are quite good and are led by some really good recommendations for further reading, some of which I intend to follow up.
May 5, 2013
This book was a hoot. Thoughtful and informative writing about the Constitution, both its odd and (seemingly) trivial clauses and the larger principles at work... But it's also just a hoot. Wexler's zany, irreverent humor turns up at just the right moments, time after time, and I was disappointed when the book ended only because I wanted there to be more pages.
June 16, 2016
Do you like jokes about the Third Amendment? Or bills of attainder? Or why American government officials can't receive titles of nobility?
Well, I do. So I loved this book.
Your mileage may vary
Well, I do. So I loved this book.
Your mileage may vary
March 10, 2012
Excellent. This is a very readable look at the US constitution -- not as esoteric as the title suggests. (Nice job, Jesse.)
January 18, 2017
Topical
An entertaining and enjoyable read about how some of the more obscure clauses of the Constitution have been applied throughout our history.
An entertaining and enjoyable read about how some of the more obscure clauses of the Constitution have been applied throughout our history.
February 21, 2022
When is Goodreads going to introduce half-star ratings? This is a solid 3 1/2 and deserves to be rated as such.
Anyways, I first read about this in a Chuck Klosterman book, a person whose books I've used to point myself towards interesting pop nonfiction. And while The Odd Clauses is one of those pop nonfiction books that focuses on a hyper-specific topic, its writer certainly has the ethos to back it up: he is a law professor and a lawyer with strong experience. Wexler uses his credentials to write a book about the weirder parts of the Constitution, and does so in a mostly decent way.
Wexler's strength is in his ability to render constitutional and legal language accessible, summarizing and analyzing real-world examples in a way that is stripped of legalese and flowery language. The idea here is that the analysis has to be as clear as its goal of making clear the Constitution's stranger sections, and it works.
What doesn't work about this are his attempts to inject humor. Sure, the humor works to make it lighter reading, but the humor is cringey and distracting at best. I also wish the rhetorical project of the book had been made clearer throughout. Sometimes the book flounders in its attempts towards cohesion, and doesn't really project its thesis until the end. This kind of inductive reasoning only works in very specific cases IMO, and not as well here.
Still, I came away with a newer and more nuanced understanding of the constitution, and had a good time reading the book.
Anyways, I first read about this in a Chuck Klosterman book, a person whose books I've used to point myself towards interesting pop nonfiction. And while The Odd Clauses is one of those pop nonfiction books that focuses on a hyper-specific topic, its writer certainly has the ethos to back it up: he is a law professor and a lawyer with strong experience. Wexler uses his credentials to write a book about the weirder parts of the Constitution, and does so in a mostly decent way.
Wexler's strength is in his ability to render constitutional and legal language accessible, summarizing and analyzing real-world examples in a way that is stripped of legalese and flowery language. The idea here is that the analysis has to be as clear as its goal of making clear the Constitution's stranger sections, and it works.
What doesn't work about this are his attempts to inject humor. Sure, the humor works to make it lighter reading, but the humor is cringey and distracting at best. I also wish the rhetorical project of the book had been made clearer throughout. Sometimes the book flounders in its attempts towards cohesion, and doesn't really project its thesis until the end. This kind of inductive reasoning only works in very specific cases IMO, and not as well here.
Still, I came away with a newer and more nuanced understanding of the constitution, and had a good time reading the book.
March 23, 2020
It's not exactly current events, but it does have pertinence to current events! This entertaining look at several of the more obscure or even strange provisions in the United States Constitution is often funny and always illuminating, explaining with clarity why and how some of these provisions ended up in the Constitution in the first place and how they still resonate today, even if the Third Amendment seems a holdover from the Revolution or if we have no idea what a "Bill of Attainder" is. If you're looking to learn more about the US Constitution, this is a good book to check out. It's not an all-purposes introduction to the document, but the focus isn't strictly tight, either, as Wexler uses his selection of strange items in the Constitution to explore more general issues with the document.
June 2, 2022
Who knew a book about constitutional clauses and the sometimes obscure case law surrounding them could be so entertaining. The tone is fun and funny with lines like "Apparently bottomless-dancing clubs were not nearly as wholesome as one might imagine"
Reading a book written during the Obama administration was a little surreal, because of references to both Trump and the then make-up of the court. I do wonder how the book might have changed if the author had come to it 10 years later. Anways, I'm planning to read his other books too.
Reading a book written during the Obama administration was a little surreal, because of references to both Trump and the then make-up of the court. I do wonder how the book might have changed if the author had come to it 10 years later. Anways, I'm planning to read his other books too.
May 10, 2019
Awesome premise, marred by random digressions into vaguely related topics and a determined, militant desire to inject his own politics into each argument. A more nuanced, balanced set of arguments would have been preferable.
Anyone with whom the author disagrees is described a abhorrent or non-compassionate or evil. And his “humor” is rarely humorous.
I hoped for much much more.
This isn’t to say that I didn’t learn some things.
Anyone with whom the author disagrees is described a abhorrent or non-compassionate or evil. And his “humor” is rarely humorous.
I hoped for much much more.
This isn’t to say that I didn’t learn some things.
May 29, 2024
Not a serious discussion of constitutional law or history
Mr. Wexler, A radical political activist, obscures constitutional law by cherry picking infrequently discussed clauses. He then compounds the offense by offering partisan political arguments for his preferred interpretations. The only meaningful portion of his text is the obvious political bias, which he makes no attempt to conceal. The only justification for the book is his self identification as a humorist.
Mr. Wexler, A radical political activist, obscures constitutional law by cherry picking infrequently discussed clauses. He then compounds the offense by offering partisan political arguments for his preferred interpretations. The only meaningful portion of his text is the obvious political bias, which he makes no attempt to conceal. The only justification for the book is his self identification as a humorist.
June 8, 2017
This is a smart, fascinating, and, yes, funny book on Constitutional provisions and clauses that we don’t often hear about, some of which have an impact on our lives in surprising ways. I have a big old crush on Jay Wexler just from reading this book!
October 2, 2020
Fascinating and fun. Gave me some insights and understanding of why the Supreme Court sometimes seem to tie itself in knots trying to force feed a modern issue into an obsolete legal framework. Made me want more.
July 13, 2017
Good read with lots of interesting tidbits and anecdotes. One downside is a distracting political tone that is unnecessary.
September 14, 2017
Very interesting and funny. Very educational.
October 19, 2021
An unexpected delight! If you’re even mildly curious, go for it. This book was well researched, informative and entertaining, dare I say funny.
July 22, 2013
Great concept: learn about the Constitution through its weirder and often forgotten parts. Along the way, learn about what the Constitution does and does not explicitly provide and what the framers were thinking when certain parts were written. My take-away, which was powerful, is that such a seemingly "rock-solid" document has to be interpreted by very human actors that all bring their own prejudices to the problem. It's not just about whether you can interpret equal protection to cover sexual orientation when there are scholars in the world that are willing to debate how to circumvent crystal-clear provisions such as the minimum presidential age. EVERYTHING is up for grabs in this world, and if it behooves the people of the 2000s to pretend that a military base in Panama is American soil when it is convenient, you can bet that it will happen one way or another.
I also really enjoyed the glimpse into the minds of the framers. I had never thought about the difficulty of how to address the president in a time that had only known kings and sovereigns ("Your Majesty the President"? "Your Highness the President?").
If there is one failing, it is that the author's political voice intrudes powerfully in many places. Even though his and my positions are the same, it was still unexpected to suddenly encounter 2 pages deriding birthers when that issue is different than what is at stake (i.e., the question of "was he or wasn't he?" is different than "is it good policy for the Constitution to require it?"). Some of the more recent interjections over Obama and gay marriage will hopefully seem quaint in 10 or 20 years, which will hurt this book's longevity or at least make it clearly a product of its time. On the whole, however, I think it was a fine book that I would recommend to anyone interested in the quirkier areas of Constitutional law.
I also really enjoyed the glimpse into the minds of the framers. I had never thought about the difficulty of how to address the president in a time that had only known kings and sovereigns ("Your Majesty the President"? "Your Highness the President?").
If there is one failing, it is that the author's political voice intrudes powerfully in many places. Even though his and my positions are the same, it was still unexpected to suddenly encounter 2 pages deriding birthers when that issue is different than what is at stake (i.e., the question of "was he or wasn't he?" is different than "is it good policy for the Constitution to require it?"). Some of the more recent interjections over Obama and gay marriage will hopefully seem quaint in 10 or 20 years, which will hurt this book's longevity or at least make it clearly a product of its time. On the whole, however, I think it was a fine book that I would recommend to anyone interested in the quirkier areas of Constitutional law.
February 28, 2025
A surprisingly humorous read as Wexler navigates some of the lesser-known and obscure parts of the Constitution, the history of how they got there, and how they could potentially be applicable. This is not a daunting text, nor do you have to be a constitutional scholar, this is pretty accessible and he makes it pretty amusing with his examples.
April 18, 2014
This book is a fair amount of fun. I heard about it a few years ago, I think on the Volokh Conspiracy, where Wexler acted as guest-blogger for a week. It examines a number of the lesser known parts of the constitution, the "bat eared foxes" of the constitution rather than the lions or horses or whatnot: the recess appointments clause, the titles of nobility clause, weights and measurements clause, no quartering of troops in the 3rd amendment, etc. Generally Prof. Wexler covers the meaning in historical context, the times they've been brought up in court cases (even very frivolous cases), how legal scholars view it, and how it might be exploited in the future.
It's a light, quick read, and I'd probably have given it 3 stars, except for the fact that Wexler is very funny. He is unapologetically liberal, and often skewers social right-wingers, but always in a very hilarious manner. The sections on why assorted people from John Quincy Adams through a government committee in 1871 hate the metric system is especially recommend (reason: it's way too complicated, and please we have to think of the children!).
There were a couple clauses I hoped would be covered that weren't: the article V alternative method of amending the constitution by convention, or Article IV's section about Congress guaranteeing a republican form of government for the states, or how the states cannot make anything but gold or silver legal tender for payment of debts. Oh well. The book is short, but well-written. Oh and the bibliography has a lot of good suggestions for further reading on the topics covered.
It's a light, quick read, and I'd probably have given it 3 stars, except for the fact that Wexler is very funny. He is unapologetically liberal, and often skewers social right-wingers, but always in a very hilarious manner. The sections on why assorted people from John Quincy Adams through a government committee in 1871 hate the metric system is especially recommend (reason: it's way too complicated, and please we have to think of the children!).
There were a couple clauses I hoped would be covered that weren't: the article V alternative method of amending the constitution by convention, or Article IV's section about Congress guaranteeing a republican form of government for the states, or how the states cannot make anything but gold or silver legal tender for payment of debts. Oh well. The book is short, but well-written. Oh and the bibliography has a lot of good suggestions for further reading on the topics covered.
February 16, 2017
Very interesting and readable dive into constitutional law and interpretation, with great and extensive notes for further reading.
January 16, 2012
Thanks to goodreads First Reads program for the free copy of this book.
In The Odd Clauses Wexler brings to light some of the more unusual provisions hidden away in the document that founded the American government, the Constitution. In his explanations he meanders quite a bit to pull in a fair amount of information about the rest of the constitution as well.
The reason I entered this goodreads giveaway was that I am not politically savvy, and government has just never been an interest for me. (I'm trying to expand my literary horizons.) So I appreciate that I did come away with a better understanding of how the government as a whole works. (By the way, the chapter on requirements to be presidency is particularly entertaining. Even I managed to hear about all the fuss about Obama's birth certificate, but I completely missed that John McCain was technically born in Panama. Who knew?)
At any rate, I did feel like this was written for an audience with a better understanding of the government. I can just picture him writing it for his coworkers, or as an offshoot of his class on constitutional law. At the same time, his tone throughout the book is exceptionally conversational, his sentences are long and at times full of legalese, and his paragraphs drop examples like a bombing raid, assuming that his readers know the full story behind all of them.
This was probably more a 2.5-star book for me, but I did learn something, so let's round up.
In The Odd Clauses Wexler brings to light some of the more unusual provisions hidden away in the document that founded the American government, the Constitution. In his explanations he meanders quite a bit to pull in a fair amount of information about the rest of the constitution as well.
The reason I entered this goodreads giveaway was that I am not politically savvy, and government has just never been an interest for me. (I'm trying to expand my literary horizons.) So I appreciate that I did come away with a better understanding of how the government as a whole works. (By the way, the chapter on requirements to be presidency is particularly entertaining. Even I managed to hear about all the fuss about Obama's birth certificate, but I completely missed that John McCain was technically born in Panama. Who knew?)
At any rate, I did feel like this was written for an audience with a better understanding of the government. I can just picture him writing it for his coworkers, or as an offshoot of his class on constitutional law. At the same time, his tone throughout the book is exceptionally conversational, his sentences are long and at times full of legalese, and his paragraphs drop examples like a bombing raid, assuming that his readers know the full story behind all of them.
This was probably more a 2.5-star book for me, but I did learn something, so let's round up.
January 14, 2012
I received this book as a "First Read" and I wasn't disappointed.
Let me first note that I am not a Lawyer, I have not attended Law school, I just find the topic interesting. I was a little worried at first. The description I received with the copy of the book stated "If you love American history and 'The Colbert Report,'you'll love this look at..." Here I was thinking I was getting an intellectual law book with interesting insight and it was already mentioning Stephen Colbert. But a few pages in I quickly realized it was far above a "Colbert Report" comparison. A comparison to "The West Wing" would fit this book much better if one had to do so.
On that note, yes, Wexler takes a much lighter approach at reviewing Constitutional Law. I wish all Law books were this interesting and read this easily. I found myself breezing the through the chapters, laughing at parts, and really thinking about other arguments that were introduced. A book that makes you think. How refreshing! Also, political views were not forced upon the reader. It looked at problems faced by both liberals and conservatives. There was no visible agenda to bash and criticize on one parties views. Which in today's world is a nice change.
Is this book for everybody? Definitely not. However for those out there who have an interest in History, Law, or The Constitution, this is a must read.
Let me first note that I am not a Lawyer, I have not attended Law school, I just find the topic interesting. I was a little worried at first. The description I received with the copy of the book stated "If you love American history and 'The Colbert Report,'you'll love this look at..." Here I was thinking I was getting an intellectual law book with interesting insight and it was already mentioning Stephen Colbert. But a few pages in I quickly realized it was far above a "Colbert Report" comparison. A comparison to "The West Wing" would fit this book much better if one had to do so.
On that note, yes, Wexler takes a much lighter approach at reviewing Constitutional Law. I wish all Law books were this interesting and read this easily. I found myself breezing the through the chapters, laughing at parts, and really thinking about other arguments that were introduced. A book that makes you think. How refreshing! Also, political views were not forced upon the reader. It looked at problems faced by both liberals and conservatives. There was no visible agenda to bash and criticize on one parties views. Which in today's world is a nice change.
Is this book for everybody? Definitely not. However for those out there who have an interest in History, Law, or The Constitution, this is a must read.
March 29, 2017
Wexler encourages the reader to consider the Constitution and some of its less well-known or less "sexy" clauses in a different light. This is not to say he wants the reader to engage in a "revisionist" or activist interpretation of the Constitution's curious provisions and odd phraseology, but he makes very good and very salient points. Some of his arguments are less compelling than others, but still, he makes you think about how ambiguous parts of the document are, and how simple misundertandings or nuanced circumstance can turn it all upside down.
four stars, and not five; mainly because his bias peeks through a few times. It is clear Wexler is left-of-center, and while his arguments are clear-minded and at times entertaining, I think he diminishes his premise by taking needless partisan swipes. The bias is not terribly distracting because he is adept at using partisan-swipe examples while leaving his statements relatively untainted by the bias. But it is still there. He would make me kind of growl under my breath on one page and LOL on another. I will read more of Wexler in the future if given the chance.
four stars, and not five; mainly because his bias peeks through a few times. It is clear Wexler is left-of-center, and while his arguments are clear-minded and at times entertaining, I think he diminishes his premise by taking needless partisan swipes. The bias is not terribly distracting because he is adept at using partisan-swipe examples while leaving his statements relatively untainted by the bias. But it is still there. He would make me kind of growl under my breath on one page and LOL on another. I will read more of Wexler in the future if given the chance.
December 2, 2013
The chapters discuss ten lesser-known provisions of the U.S. Constitution, discuss why the framers thought they were important to put in, why contemporary thought often questions their relevance, and how the provisions might apply to contemporary legal concepts.
It was rather light going, with plenty of attempts at jokes. A popular approach to discussing broader issues of Constitutional theory and practice. All in all, I thought the discussions were lively and relevant and gave good insight into why the Constitution is so open to interpretation.
I'll remember that provisions such as limiting the Presidency to those born in the United States is regarded as now irrelevant and has been hard to enforce. George Romney was born in Mexico, and he ran for President, and John McCain was born the the Panama Canal Zone, and no one opened their mouth. But I still like the clause that makes it unconstitutional for a citizen to hold a hereditary title of nobility--all you exiled princes and barons and dukes can go fuck off.
It was rather light going, with plenty of attempts at jokes. A popular approach to discussing broader issues of Constitutional theory and practice. All in all, I thought the discussions were lively and relevant and gave good insight into why the Constitution is so open to interpretation.
I'll remember that provisions such as limiting the Presidency to those born in the United States is regarded as now irrelevant and has been hard to enforce. George Romney was born in Mexico, and he ran for President, and John McCain was born the the Panama Canal Zone, and no one opened their mouth. But I still like the clause that makes it unconstitutional for a citizen to hold a hereditary title of nobility--all you exiled princes and barons and dukes can go fuck off.
November 10, 2016
Wow! This is one of the best books I have read this year. First of all, it was purely coincidental that this popped up in my queue the day after the election. I have tried to read books on the Constitution before, and have always been comatose by page 5. This was a true page-turner. I could barely put it down to sleep.
Wexler, law professor, former Supreme Court clerk, worked in the Office of Legal Council, is never the less a cleaver and witty writer. He illustrates the constitution's relevance to our lives and the integrity of our democracy in an entertaining way using some of the stranger provisions, e.g. letters of marque and reprisal, and the titles of nobility clauses. I also now have much more respect for the third amendment. Five starts places it in my rarefied "must read" category.
Wexler, law professor, former Supreme Court clerk, worked in the Office of Legal Council, is never the less a cleaver and witty writer. He illustrates the constitution's relevance to our lives and the integrity of our democracy in an entertaining way using some of the stranger provisions, e.g. letters of marque and reprisal, and the titles of nobility clauses. I also now have much more respect for the third amendment. Five starts places it in my rarefied "must read" category.
February 5, 2014
I got this as a Christmas present from my future-in-laws (they know me pretty well) and really enjoyed it. I don't read non-fiction books very often, but this reads very easily. That said, I wouldn't consider it an entry-level discussion of the constitution, either. Wexler explains his concepts, but he doesn't dumb things down, either, and he goes into the weeds of constitutional analysis at times. Lots of fun if you're already a con law nerd (*raises hand*), but might be difficult if you're not.
As a side note, Wexler definitely lets the liberal flag fly in places. It's kind of hilarious, if you're into dark humor about Dick Cheney and John Yoo (spoiler alert: Wexler isn't a big fan).
As a side note, Wexler definitely lets the liberal flag fly in places. It's kind of hilarious, if you're into dark humor about Dick Cheney and John Yoo (spoiler alert: Wexler isn't a big fan).
January 21, 2012
The Odd Clauses: Understanding the Constitution Through Ten of Its Most Curious Provisions by Jay Wexler is a book I found to be interesting and educational. The author has cleverly presented ways to help the average reader to remember the content and the placement of each amendment.
I cannot recommend this book, however as I find the author has incorporated his religious and political partisan biases into his content. I found this very off-putting. It detracted from the overall value of his book.
I cannot recommend this book, however as I find the author has incorporated his religious and political partisan biases into his content. I found this very off-putting. It detracted from the overall value of his book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews