What do you think?
Rate this book
Politically Incorrect Guides
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
While the government claims to be a representative republic, somehow hot-button topics from gay marriage to the allocation of Florida's presidential electors always seem to be decided by unelected judges. What gives them the right to decide such issues? The judges say it's the Constitution. Author and law professor Kevin Gutzman shows that there is very little relationship between the Constitution ratified by the thirteen states more than two centuries ago and the "constitutional law" imposed upon us since then. Instead of the intended system of state-level decision makers and elected officials, judges have given us a centralized system in which bureaucrats and appointed officials make most of the important policies. The Constitution guarantees our rights and freedoms, but activist judges are threatening those very rights because of the Supreme Court's willingness to substitute its own opinions for the perfectly constitutional laws enacted by "we, the people" through our elected representatives. As Professor Gutzman shows, constitutional law is supposed to apply the Constitution's plain meaning to prevent judges, presidents, and congresses from overstepping their authority. If we want to return to the Founding Fathers' vision of the Republic, if we want the Constitution enforced in the way it was explained to the people at the time of its ratification, then we have to overcome the "received wisdom" about what constitutional law is. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is an important step in that direction.
Audio CD
First published January 1, 2006
87 people are currently reading
907 people want to read
About the author
Kevin R.C. Gutzman
10 books186 followersKevin R. C. Gutzman is the New York Times best-selling author of five books--with a sixth forthcoming. Professor of History at Western Connecticut State University, Gutzman holds a bachelor’s degree, a master of public affairs degree, and a law degree from the University of Texas at Austin, as well as an MA and a PhD in American history from the University of Virginia. Happy to be a former attorney, Gutzman devotes his intellectual energy to teaching courses in the Revolutionary and constitutional history of the United States, to writing books and articles in these fields, and to public speaking on related topics.
Dr. Gutzman's first book was the New York Times best-seller The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, an account of American constitutional history from the pre-Revolutionary days to the present. This work is unique in joining the fruits of the latest scholarship, a very readable presentation, and a distinctly Jeffersonian point of view. His second book, Virginia’s American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840, explores the issue what the Revolutionaries made of the Revolution in Thomas Jefferson’s home state. After that, he co-authored Who Killed the Constitution? The Federal Government vs. American Liberty from World War I to Barack Obama with New York Times best-selling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and wrote James Madison and the Making of America--a Main Selection of the History Book Club. Most recently, he wrote Thomas Jefferson--Revolutionary: A Radical's Struggle to Remake America (St. Martin's Press, 2017), a selection of the History Book Club. His latest, coming on December 13, 2022 from St. Martin's Press, is The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.
Gutzman has edited new editions of John Taylor of Caroline’s Tyranny Unmasked and New Views of the Constitution of the United States. His essay “Lincoln as Jeffersonian: The Colonization Chimera” appeared in editor Brian Dirck’s collection Lincoln Emancipated: The President and the Politics of Race, and his "James Madison and the Ratification of the Constitution: A Triumph Over Adversity" appeared in editor Stuart Leiberger's collection A Companion to James Madison and James Monroe (Blackwell 2012)."
Gutzman has appeared on over 500 radio programs, on Dave Rubin's and Tom Woods' popular podcasts (among others), on syndicated shows such as The Michael Medved Show, the Janet Parshall Show, and the Curtis Sliwa Show and multiple programs on Air America, on Sirius Satellite Radio (including as guest host), on America's Radio News Network, as well as on C-SPAN 2's "BookTV," CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," and Fox News's "The Glenn Beck Program." He has also been interviewed by reporters from the AP, the Washington Times, the Philadelphia Enquirer, the Washington Post, The Hartford Business Journal, the Houston Chronicle online, and the New York Times.
Kevin Gutzman was a featured expert in the documentary films “John Marshall: Citizen, Statesman, Jurist," "Nullification: The Rightful Remedy," and "Safeguard: An Electoral College Story."
Dr. Gutzman's first book was the New York Times best-seller The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, an account of American constitutional history from the pre-Revolutionary days to the present. This work is unique in joining the fruits of the latest scholarship, a very readable presentation, and a distinctly Jeffersonian point of view. His second book, Virginia’s American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840, explores the issue what the Revolutionaries made of the Revolution in Thomas Jefferson’s home state. After that, he co-authored Who Killed the Constitution? The Federal Government vs. American Liberty from World War I to Barack Obama with New York Times best-selling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and wrote James Madison and the Making of America--a Main Selection of the History Book Club. Most recently, he wrote Thomas Jefferson--Revolutionary: A Radical's Struggle to Remake America (St. Martin's Press, 2017), a selection of the History Book Club. His latest, coming on December 13, 2022 from St. Martin's Press, is The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.
Gutzman has edited new editions of John Taylor of Caroline’s Tyranny Unmasked and New Views of the Constitution of the United States. His essay “Lincoln as Jeffersonian: The Colonization Chimera” appeared in editor Brian Dirck’s collection Lincoln Emancipated: The President and the Politics of Race, and his "James Madison and the Ratification of the Constitution: A Triumph Over Adversity" appeared in editor Stuart Leiberger's collection A Companion to James Madison and James Monroe (Blackwell 2012)."
Gutzman has appeared on over 500 radio programs, on Dave Rubin's and Tom Woods' popular podcasts (among others), on syndicated shows such as The Michael Medved Show, the Janet Parshall Show, and the Curtis Sliwa Show and multiple programs on Air America, on Sirius Satellite Radio (including as guest host), on America's Radio News Network, as well as on C-SPAN 2's "BookTV," CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," and Fox News's "The Glenn Beck Program." He has also been interviewed by reporters from the AP, the Washington Times, the Philadelphia Enquirer, the Washington Post, The Hartford Business Journal, the Houston Chronicle online, and the New York Times.
Kevin Gutzman was a featured expert in the documentary films “John Marshall: Citizen, Statesman, Jurist," "Nullification: The Rightful Remedy," and "Safeguard: An Electoral College Story."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
March 19, 2024
In the mid 2000s, Regnery began churning out a right-wing variation on the “For Dummies” media brand of instructional guides. Called “Politically Incorrect Guides,” they were designed to provide an ideologically correct spin on their subjects. Nearly three dozen have been published so far on various historical and contemporary topics, most of which consist of brave sallies against ideological straw men intended to demonstrate why the right’s interpretation of the world is always the correct one.
Kevin Gutzman’s book is a fine example of the type. Even before the reader cracks it open, the assertions on its cover telegraph his targets within it, which are “activist” judges whose interpretation of constitutional law, the author insists, has nothing to do with the Constitution. While such highlighting of his agenda is helpful, it also points to one of the book’s main flaws, which is his excessively narrow focus on the role the judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court of the United States, plays in the interpretation of the nation’s founding document. It’s a disappointingly presentist approach that largely ignores the historically more significant role played by legislators, lawyers, presidents, and the voting public, and hints at an undercurrent of elitism that bursts out into the open in the book’s final pages.
The author’s polemical focus on the judicial branch becomes more evident with his approach to his subject. Normally a book that is advertised as a “guide” to the Constitution would be expected to present its subject topically by providing a description of its various articles and amendments. Gutzman, however, offers no such analysis, adopting instead a chronological approach that is focused mainly on the era between the American Revolution and the Civil War. Anyone seeking an explanation here of the political philosophies that informed the drafting of the Constitution will find instead a curiously imbalanced account of the events leading up to the Constitutional Convention that puts Virginia at the center of activities. It’s a choice that not only leans into Gutzman’s previous work on the state in that era, but allows him to give Thomas Jefferson pride of place among the framers, despite the fact that Jefferson was an ocean away when the Constitution was actually drafted.
Throughout this part, Gutzman emphasizes the conception of the new nation’s government under the Articles of Confederation as a collection of sovereign states, a model which he regards favorably. Why, then, was the Constitution necessary? Here Gutzman glosses over the Confederation government’s many problems, particularly its lack of a dependable revenue source to pay off the debts accrued from its war against Great Britain. Instead, he prefers to treat the calls for a stronger central government as the product of a “false” belief that the inability to obtain credit from “European monarchies and bankers” was proof that the Articles were inadequate, with the implication that the states were providing a sufficient amount in voluntary contributions, an argument he grounds tellingly in a reference to rational choice modeling rather than in specific figures.
Nevertheless, this allows Gutzman to paint the convention as a nefarious attempt by its initiators to impose a national government upon the states. His devotion to state sovereignty nonetheless leads him to emphasize the federal elements of the new document, claiming that the advocates to states’ rights “won” every argument at the convention and in the ratification debates. In the process, Gutzman focuses excessively on any claim made during the latter about state’s rights and downplays or dismisses any arguments to the contrary. This includes an incredibly silly effort to dismiss the essays that comprise The Federalist Papers as both insignificant to the ratification debates and irrelevant to constitutional interpretation, even though the same arguments about the confused and contradictory nature of the exegesis they provide holds equally true for the overall debate to which Gutzman gives such weight.
It is here that Gutzman’s embrace of originalism in constitutional interpretation comes into play. Early on he implies that divining the intentions of the drafters is possible thanks to the records left of the convention’s proceedings, particularly the ones from participants who happen to share the author’s belief in state sovereignty. Left unstated, however, is the erroneous assumption common to all advocates of original intent, which is that these records are both complete and accurate. This is why Gutzman’s claim is only implied rather than proven, as any attempt to assert it would have required him to show that the records upon which he places such weight offer no such comprehensiveness, let alone consistency of interpretation. Yet Gutzman is not one to let such trifling concerns to stand in the way of his claims that state sovereignty won out over nationalism in every argument about the Constitution – never mind that its very adoption represented a shift away from the principles which he holds so dear – which empowers him to treat any reading of it other than his as false.
It is on these grounds that Gutzman launches his attack on the judges whom he regards as exceeding their remit at every turn. He reserves his greatest ire for John Marshall, who emerges as the villain of his tale less for his activism than his decisions in support of federal power and nationalism. It is only when Marshall issues a decision in support of states’ rights that Gutzman decrees that the legendary chief justice decided a case “correctly,” and he celebrates Marshall’s successor, Roger B. Taney, as one of the “ablest in the history of the Court,” even while noting sorrowfully that Taney’s partisanship and reluctance to reverse earlier decisions limited his achievements.
It is when he reaches the Civil War, however, that the ideologically-driven flaws in Gutzman’s reasoning become particularly egregious. This is especially true with his digressive criticism of the very name of the conflict, which he deems misleading. Claiming that a civil war is “a war for control of a single government,” he argues that the war of 1861-1865 does not qualify as one, as the Confederates were seeking not to take over the federal government but to separate from it. Setting aside the excessively narrow parameters of Gutzman’s definition (one which is far from commonly held), his defense is based entirely on the assumption that secession was indeed permitted under the Constitution, a premise that Gutzman spends several pages in a strained effort to assert was indeed the case. Left unacknowledged is the fact that, had the Confederates succeeded in their attempt, they would have inflicted permanent, even crippling, damage on the government that were resisting. It is difficult to imagine that Gutzman would have shed many tears over such a result.
From here the text degenerates into a collection of denunciations of various Supreme Court decisions from the Gilded Age to Bush v. Gore. These later chapters read mainly as a collection of the author’s pet peeves about various justices and their jurisprudence, all of which are criticized as further examples of the abuse of judicial power. To his credit, Gutzman holds true to his principles even with decisions in which he agrees with the outcome, arguing that in those cases the unconstitutional means still do not justify the constitutional ends. Yet any sense of principled objection is abandoned in the conclusion, in which, in response to his plaintive cry of how to fix the “nearly uninterrupted misapplication of the federal Constitution,” he calls for the creation of an extra-constitutional body (such as a council of chief judges from the state supreme courts) to review Supreme Court decisions. It’s a laughable notion that reflects Gutzman inability to accept that the ”unconstitutional” development the nation’s governing document has undertaken in the centuries since it was drafted is one that, for all of their criticism of various results, Americans have largely endorsed. That Gutzman is incapable even of acknowledging, much less addressing, this ultimately makes his jeremiad not just extreme, but irrelevant.
Kevin Gutzman’s book is a fine example of the type. Even before the reader cracks it open, the assertions on its cover telegraph his targets within it, which are “activist” judges whose interpretation of constitutional law, the author insists, has nothing to do with the Constitution. While such highlighting of his agenda is helpful, it also points to one of the book’s main flaws, which is his excessively narrow focus on the role the judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court of the United States, plays in the interpretation of the nation’s founding document. It’s a disappointingly presentist approach that largely ignores the historically more significant role played by legislators, lawyers, presidents, and the voting public, and hints at an undercurrent of elitism that bursts out into the open in the book’s final pages.
The author’s polemical focus on the judicial branch becomes more evident with his approach to his subject. Normally a book that is advertised as a “guide” to the Constitution would be expected to present its subject topically by providing a description of its various articles and amendments. Gutzman, however, offers no such analysis, adopting instead a chronological approach that is focused mainly on the era between the American Revolution and the Civil War. Anyone seeking an explanation here of the political philosophies that informed the drafting of the Constitution will find instead a curiously imbalanced account of the events leading up to the Constitutional Convention that puts Virginia at the center of activities. It’s a choice that not only leans into Gutzman’s previous work on the state in that era, but allows him to give Thomas Jefferson pride of place among the framers, despite the fact that Jefferson was an ocean away when the Constitution was actually drafted.
Throughout this part, Gutzman emphasizes the conception of the new nation’s government under the Articles of Confederation as a collection of sovereign states, a model which he regards favorably. Why, then, was the Constitution necessary? Here Gutzman glosses over the Confederation government’s many problems, particularly its lack of a dependable revenue source to pay off the debts accrued from its war against Great Britain. Instead, he prefers to treat the calls for a stronger central government as the product of a “false” belief that the inability to obtain credit from “European monarchies and bankers” was proof that the Articles were inadequate, with the implication that the states were providing a sufficient amount in voluntary contributions, an argument he grounds tellingly in a reference to rational choice modeling rather than in specific figures.
Nevertheless, this allows Gutzman to paint the convention as a nefarious attempt by its initiators to impose a national government upon the states. His devotion to state sovereignty nonetheless leads him to emphasize the federal elements of the new document, claiming that the advocates to states’ rights “won” every argument at the convention and in the ratification debates. In the process, Gutzman focuses excessively on any claim made during the latter about state’s rights and downplays or dismisses any arguments to the contrary. This includes an incredibly silly effort to dismiss the essays that comprise The Federalist Papers as both insignificant to the ratification debates and irrelevant to constitutional interpretation, even though the same arguments about the confused and contradictory nature of the exegesis they provide holds equally true for the overall debate to which Gutzman gives such weight.
It is here that Gutzman’s embrace of originalism in constitutional interpretation comes into play. Early on he implies that divining the intentions of the drafters is possible thanks to the records left of the convention’s proceedings, particularly the ones from participants who happen to share the author’s belief in state sovereignty. Left unstated, however, is the erroneous assumption common to all advocates of original intent, which is that these records are both complete and accurate. This is why Gutzman’s claim is only implied rather than proven, as any attempt to assert it would have required him to show that the records upon which he places such weight offer no such comprehensiveness, let alone consistency of interpretation. Yet Gutzman is not one to let such trifling concerns to stand in the way of his claims that state sovereignty won out over nationalism in every argument about the Constitution – never mind that its very adoption represented a shift away from the principles which he holds so dear – which empowers him to treat any reading of it other than his as false.
It is on these grounds that Gutzman launches his attack on the judges whom he regards as exceeding their remit at every turn. He reserves his greatest ire for John Marshall, who emerges as the villain of his tale less for his activism than his decisions in support of federal power and nationalism. It is only when Marshall issues a decision in support of states’ rights that Gutzman decrees that the legendary chief justice decided a case “correctly,” and he celebrates Marshall’s successor, Roger B. Taney, as one of the “ablest in the history of the Court,” even while noting sorrowfully that Taney’s partisanship and reluctance to reverse earlier decisions limited his achievements.
It is when he reaches the Civil War, however, that the ideologically-driven flaws in Gutzman’s reasoning become particularly egregious. This is especially true with his digressive criticism of the very name of the conflict, which he deems misleading. Claiming that a civil war is “a war for control of a single government,” he argues that the war of 1861-1865 does not qualify as one, as the Confederates were seeking not to take over the federal government but to separate from it. Setting aside the excessively narrow parameters of Gutzman’s definition (one which is far from commonly held), his defense is based entirely on the assumption that secession was indeed permitted under the Constitution, a premise that Gutzman spends several pages in a strained effort to assert was indeed the case. Left unacknowledged is the fact that, had the Confederates succeeded in their attempt, they would have inflicted permanent, even crippling, damage on the government that were resisting. It is difficult to imagine that Gutzman would have shed many tears over such a result.
From here the text degenerates into a collection of denunciations of various Supreme Court decisions from the Gilded Age to Bush v. Gore. These later chapters read mainly as a collection of the author’s pet peeves about various justices and their jurisprudence, all of which are criticized as further examples of the abuse of judicial power. To his credit, Gutzman holds true to his principles even with decisions in which he agrees with the outcome, arguing that in those cases the unconstitutional means still do not justify the constitutional ends. Yet any sense of principled objection is abandoned in the conclusion, in which, in response to his plaintive cry of how to fix the “nearly uninterrupted misapplication of the federal Constitution,” he calls for the creation of an extra-constitutional body (such as a council of chief judges from the state supreme courts) to review Supreme Court decisions. It’s a laughable notion that reflects Gutzman inability to accept that the ”unconstitutional” development the nation’s governing document has undertaken in the centuries since it was drafted is one that, for all of their criticism of various results, Americans have largely endorsed. That Gutzman is incapable even of acknowledging, much less addressing, this ultimately makes his jeremiad not just extreme, but irrelevant.
April 27, 2011
While it does carry some interesting tidbits, it's a clear example of how an author's bias directs their work.
October 14, 2012
This book was something of a revelation to me. I never realized that the Constitution arose out of such an arduous drafting and ratification process. It was also amazing to me how quickly American leaders began undermining its core tenants, hardly even bothering to wait until the ink was dry. Over the next couple centuries, we have drifted farther and farther away from the underlying principles that the United States of America was founded on--partly due to presidents like Lincoln, who took advantage of a national crisis to pass pretty much any law he wanted, but mostly due to Supreme Court Justices who long ago hijacked the American legal system with all its checks and balances and announced themselves the sole authority as to what the Constitution actually "says." Not surprisingly, throughout the nation's history they have often just interpreted it in whatever way they wanted--and they have done so transparently. This book does an admirable job of counteracting some of the popular myths pertaining to the history of American law, and it shows a side of American history most people are probably not aware of.
April 2, 2008
Exposes the underbelly of much legal education taught in law schools. I wish I had read this before Con Law 1 & 2 before accepting the interpretation of the law professors as the word.
Section on Civil War and 14th amendment, worth a read.
Definite conservative bias, and it depends on your interpretation stance on the constitution I am not a strict constructionist, and his arguments hinge on such philosophy, if you believe the framers meant the Constitution to be flexible and able to adapt to changing circumstance and sould reflect desirable public policy then this is not your book. But a good read for any legal scholar wanting to hone their Con Law arguments.
Section on Civil War and 14th amendment, worth a read.
Definite conservative bias, and it depends on your interpretation stance on the constitution I am not a strict constructionist, and his arguments hinge on such philosophy, if you believe the framers meant the Constitution to be flexible and able to adapt to changing circumstance and sould reflect desirable public policy then this is not your book. But a good read for any legal scholar wanting to hone their Con Law arguments.
May 24, 2015
I didn't finish this book but just gave up on it: it reached the discussion of the Civil War and entered the circular, repetitive and (often) simply wrong style of argument and the quite dishonest use of evidence one gets from (say) conspiracy theorists. I have too many *good* books to read to waste further time on this dreck.
September 20, 2012
It was difficult to get through this one, partly because I disagreed with the author and partly because of his tone. That I disagreed with the author was bad enough, but the way that he disparages the judges on the Supreme Court made it tough to listen to the arguments impartially.
September 24, 2020
Not bad. Essentially a judicial retread of 2/3 of Tom Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.
The Supreme Court is populated with lace-festooned tyrants.
The Supreme Court is populated with lace-festooned tyrants.
January 6, 2016
The bulk of this book is a history of bad Supreme Court decisions that violate the Constitution and its amendments. It's okay to read and occasionally interesting when the author illustrates just why the reasoning of the majority decision is nonsense or the decision doesn't make sense given other precedents it claims not to overturn. There's also a really good discussion in the middle of what the Civil War should be called (hint: not the Civil War, or even the War Between the States), as well as some informative discussion about what the founders really intended the Constitution to mean. The author also writes a really short ending with a brief idea of one way things could be changed to keep the Supreme Court in line with the Constitution and its explicit deference to the power of the states.
While it's interesting to know about the history around dozens of famous Supreme Court cases (and to see more about why our high school Constitutional Law class kept deciding those cases differently than the Supreme Court did when we focused on the Constitution), this content is probably much more appealing to someone with law school training. It's probably not surprising that the author is a law school professor, and while it's interesting to hear that one reason the law has gotten so far away from the Constitution is because law students study previous cases and not the Constitution, it's hard for someone like me to really get into it.
While I'm glad I read this book, I wish less focus had been placed on the Supreme Court (or the book had been titled "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court") and more time had been spent discussing how Congress and the Executive Branch have developed away from or towards the Constitution as well.
While it's interesting to know about the history around dozens of famous Supreme Court cases (and to see more about why our high school Constitutional Law class kept deciding those cases differently than the Supreme Court did when we focused on the Constitution), this content is probably much more appealing to someone with law school training. It's probably not surprising that the author is a law school professor, and while it's interesting to hear that one reason the law has gotten so far away from the Constitution is because law students study previous cases and not the Constitution, it's hard for someone like me to really get into it.
While I'm glad I read this book, I wish less focus had been placed on the Supreme Court (or the book had been titled "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court") and more time had been spent discussing how Congress and the Executive Branch have developed away from or towards the Constitution as well.
March 3, 2016
A brief, but good and sobering overview of judicial excess, overreach, and legislating from the bench that has occurred since the Constitution was ratified. The history of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, in particular, gave me some new insights.
June 22, 2021
Gutzman argues for an Originalist understanding of the U.S. Constitution that placed sovereignty with the states rather than the federal government. He argues that Federalists subverted this understanding, largely through the courts. In fact, his biggest issue (where he makes a good argument) is that we have never been a nation of laws, but of judges substituting their own opinions. John Marshall is his biggest villain, although not for establishing judicial review. Instead, he blames Marshall for constantly eroding state power in favor of the federal government in a way that went against the original understanding of the Constitution. He cites a multitude of cases where Marshall "misinterpreted" the Constitution, Gutzman feels intentionally, that established precedents that are still in effect. He even accuses Marshall of a conflict of interest in Fletcher v. Peck because Marshall was a land speculator.
Gutzman is at his best when he is arguing the anti-federalist (he refers to them as "republicans) point of view. He makes a good case that many of the framers thought the states would be the primary level of government. He specifically discusses that Virginia ratified the Constitution on the understanding that it could back out if the federal government tried to expand its power at the states' expense. Because of this, he views the Civil War as a legal secession, calling it the War for Southern Independence. He also points out (or more accurately beats like a rented mule) that the Union was using some very creative constitutional interpretations during this time, especially doing some legalistic tap dancing to get the 14th Amendment ratified. So far, so good for his argument. He isn't covering new ground, but he is covering ground that mainstream historians rarely get into detail on.
But, as you might expect, in trying to build his argument, Gutzman stretches his evidence beyond the breaking point by doing his own tap dance around the holes. The biggest issue is trying to find the original intent. Whose intent are we looking at? Should we actually be bound by rich white men who died two hundred years ago and could never have imagined the world we live in? He sometimes refers to the Framers (meaning those at the Constitutional Convention), while other times referring to the ratification conventions and other times referring to the people of a given state. He does pick out some good quotes, especially about states' rights at the time, but he is cherry-picking his evidence pretty badly. He particularly goes after Madison for changing his opinion over time, even though shortly after returning from the convention, Madison said that the vagaries of the Constitution would allow it to grow, especially federal power. Gutzman is a specialist on Constitutional history, so I must assume this omission was an intentional attempt to mislead readers. Omissions of evidence that would hurt his argument is a constant problem in this book.
He also goes back to the 14th Amendment repeatedly, which makes sense because it is the basis for a lot of 20th century rulings that he deems illegitimate. He views the amendment itself as illegitimate because of the way it was ratified (by coercion). As mentioned before, he has a good point that there were problems in the process, but it was ratified and certified, so we have to deal with it as is. He does that, but insists that it only applies to freed slaves, as that is what it was intended for. This is an odd interpretation because it says "citizens" not just "freed slaves", which goes against his supposed close reading of the text. Towards the end of the book, he beats the 14th Amendment like a rented mule as his writing because more of a rant than a scholarly work.
He also has other questions assertions, pointing to McCulloch v. Maryland assertion of the Supremacy Clause and Ogden v. Gibbons using the Commerce Clause. In each case, Gutzman's argument goes against two centuries of constitutional interpretation (which Gutzman is proud of) and a direct reading of the Constitution (which Gutzman ignores).
Perhaps most strikingly, he seems to sympathize with Chief Justice Taney on the Dred Scott decision. Gutzman seems to argue that Taney was right, or at least excused, in his decision on the case because he was worried that Republicans would rip the Union apart. He even says that any Republican could have beaten Buchanan in 1860, somehow forgetting that the Democrats had to split to make Lincoln's election possible. He then goes into the Civil War, again, and points out that the South had legal justification for secession. While his treatment of the Dred Scott decision could be described as anything from unusual to embarrassing, I can't blame him for beating the drum of state's rights one more time. He only has a few legs to stand on in the book and this is one of them.
The final problem is that Gutzman views this as a revolutionary way to interpret the Constitution today, but at best, he has shown that there was an alternative way to interpret it in the early decades of the republic. The title is appropriate in that it is politically incorrect, but not that it is a guide to the Constitution.
It was worth reading to see another perspective, if you can deal with a writing style that is smug and condescending, but won't help most people understand how the Constitution works today.
Gutzman is at his best when he is arguing the anti-federalist (he refers to them as "republicans) point of view. He makes a good case that many of the framers thought the states would be the primary level of government. He specifically discusses that Virginia ratified the Constitution on the understanding that it could back out if the federal government tried to expand its power at the states' expense. Because of this, he views the Civil War as a legal secession, calling it the War for Southern Independence. He also points out (or more accurately beats like a rented mule) that the Union was using some very creative constitutional interpretations during this time, especially doing some legalistic tap dancing to get the 14th Amendment ratified. So far, so good for his argument. He isn't covering new ground, but he is covering ground that mainstream historians rarely get into detail on.
But, as you might expect, in trying to build his argument, Gutzman stretches his evidence beyond the breaking point by doing his own tap dance around the holes. The biggest issue is trying to find the original intent. Whose intent are we looking at? Should we actually be bound by rich white men who died two hundred years ago and could never have imagined the world we live in? He sometimes refers to the Framers (meaning those at the Constitutional Convention), while other times referring to the ratification conventions and other times referring to the people of a given state. He does pick out some good quotes, especially about states' rights at the time, but he is cherry-picking his evidence pretty badly. He particularly goes after Madison for changing his opinion over time, even though shortly after returning from the convention, Madison said that the vagaries of the Constitution would allow it to grow, especially federal power. Gutzman is a specialist on Constitutional history, so I must assume this omission was an intentional attempt to mislead readers. Omissions of evidence that would hurt his argument is a constant problem in this book.
He also goes back to the 14th Amendment repeatedly, which makes sense because it is the basis for a lot of 20th century rulings that he deems illegitimate. He views the amendment itself as illegitimate because of the way it was ratified (by coercion). As mentioned before, he has a good point that there were problems in the process, but it was ratified and certified, so we have to deal with it as is. He does that, but insists that it only applies to freed slaves, as that is what it was intended for. This is an odd interpretation because it says "citizens" not just "freed slaves", which goes against his supposed close reading of the text. Towards the end of the book, he beats the 14th Amendment like a rented mule as his writing because more of a rant than a scholarly work.
He also has other questions assertions, pointing to McCulloch v. Maryland assertion of the Supremacy Clause and Ogden v. Gibbons using the Commerce Clause. In each case, Gutzman's argument goes against two centuries of constitutional interpretation (which Gutzman is proud of) and a direct reading of the Constitution (which Gutzman ignores).
Perhaps most strikingly, he seems to sympathize with Chief Justice Taney on the Dred Scott decision. Gutzman seems to argue that Taney was right, or at least excused, in his decision on the case because he was worried that Republicans would rip the Union apart. He even says that any Republican could have beaten Buchanan in 1860, somehow forgetting that the Democrats had to split to make Lincoln's election possible. He then goes into the Civil War, again, and points out that the South had legal justification for secession. While his treatment of the Dred Scott decision could be described as anything from unusual to embarrassing, I can't blame him for beating the drum of state's rights one more time. He only has a few legs to stand on in the book and this is one of them.
The final problem is that Gutzman views this as a revolutionary way to interpret the Constitution today, but at best, he has shown that there was an alternative way to interpret it in the early decades of the republic. The title is appropriate in that it is politically incorrect, but not that it is a guide to the Constitution.
It was worth reading to see another perspective, if you can deal with a writing style that is smug and condescending, but won't help most people understand how the Constitution works today.
April 4, 2010
This one was a little tough to get through. The writing just wasn't as fluid as the others in this series I have read. Or maybe I got all tangled in the legal mumbo-jumbo. This book also focused more on court cases than the actual Constitution itself, which I wasn't expecting.
However, some of the topics in this book were eye-opening and fascinating. It was interesting to read how certain administrations and Supreme Court justices have distorted the Constitution. I think we can see where the phrase "legislated from the bench" stems from. I was further enlightened as to how this country has strayed from the original intent of the Framers, and how our current laws and rulings are so far from where we should be.
However, some of the topics in this book were eye-opening and fascinating. It was interesting to read how certain administrations and Supreme Court justices have distorted the Constitution. I think we can see where the phrase "legislated from the bench" stems from. I was further enlightened as to how this country has strayed from the original intent of the Framers, and how our current laws and rulings are so far from where we should be.
January 22, 2015
Excellent conservative survey of Supreme Court decision making. Been a lawyer for over 30 years and I always felt that there was a deep seated flaw in the way Constitutional Law is taught and decided. This tongue in cheek summary is on all fours with that perception. His analysis is directly on point. His solution is weak. My thought is that a new Constitutional Convention is required to bring us back to an originalist interpretation of the Consttution. The Court has been allowed to stray so far from original intent that without the major intervention of a Convention we are in danger of losing this Republic.
January 30, 2022
The title is misleading. You would think the book would cover the document without a bias or desire to please. Instead this was simply a defense of states rights from start to finish. It was not what I signed up for and it failed to find any benefit to the current system that has evolved. I do not like historical books that use a shock factor to help demonstrate the world as the author wished it would—the corollary, of course, is that the US and a significant number of very intelligent people got it completely wrong and this one genius with a publisher can get us back on track.
July 26, 2008
Boring! I know the subject matter isn't exactly exciting in itself. The author really bashes the supreme court and the federal government, as these two entities have perverted their power from what the founding fathers originally established with the constitution.
January 21, 2011
I did not enjoy this book, and decided to give up half way through. Life is too short, and there are too many books in the world.
August 5, 2017
Gutzman is a great scholar and knows his early US history and Constitution history. This works is a good start for those who wish to look at those areas of history from a revisionist POV. What other reviewers seem to try and claim is that these are just Republican hopes and talking points. It would be important to understand that Gutzman is not a Republican and his arguments from history should be divorced from progressive wishes (those who want a Constitution that evolves with the times, argues that Jesus would be a progressive, that good and services are rights). Gutzman would most likely argue that if progressives want their philosophy carried out, the Constitution as it was originally intended would allow that as long as you follow the prescribed and proper means of change.
There are three main areas the book follows. One is the time leading up to the Revolutionary War and the political make up that would bring about the Constitution. The second is what the Constitution was done and what the federal government has done to bastardize what it means and how it's applied. Finally, how the Supreme Court and federal courts are viewed as infallible because they are supreme.
Gutzman does a decent job in compacting so much information into the book. However, this book seems structured differently than others in the PIG series. The flow seems to be a primer into revisionist Constitutional history but oddly broken up only somewhat in the PIG style. It sometimes makes for a jarring read and may not be as well liked as others in the series. Overall, the book has a lot of good discussion points that would be an interesting topic to see lectured on or debated. Final Grade - B+
There are three main areas the book follows. One is the time leading up to the Revolutionary War and the political make up that would bring about the Constitution. The second is what the Constitution was done and what the federal government has done to bastardize what it means and how it's applied. Finally, how the Supreme Court and federal courts are viewed as infallible because they are supreme.
Gutzman does a decent job in compacting so much information into the book. However, this book seems structured differently than others in the PIG series. The flow seems to be a primer into revisionist Constitutional history but oddly broken up only somewhat in the PIG style. It sometimes makes for a jarring read and may not be as well liked as others in the series. Overall, the book has a lot of good discussion points that would be an interesting topic to see lectured on or debated. Final Grade - B+
December 29, 2020
This is a very nice book that is easy to read and gets it's message out succinctly.
It is a good refresher to understand the origins or the U.S. Constitution, what the founders meant, and how it has been trampled.on....almost immediately after ratifying it!
It is a good read (and relevent) given the climate and actions taking place in America now. The behaviors, actions, words, positioning are eerily similar to the things that were going on in the mid-1800s leading up to the War against Southern Independence. Lol. The book takes time to explain, based on the constitution, how the war in the U.S. in the 1860s cannot be, by definition, a civil war.
There are great examples.of Presidents, and especially the supreme court, completely blowingnoff the constitution and usurping power they didnt have to force ideals and law aws, illegally (unconstitutionally), on the American people.
It is also a great book for those that do not understand what a federal republic with respect to what many people think, incorrectly, about what the United States is today.
If you read about the original intentions of the founding fathers amd what the Constitution really meant, and compare that to what jas been done today, you can understand some of the anguish, divisiveness, and down-right stupidity of current events. These things are happening now because we, as a country, didnt adhere to our constitution, didnt hold our officials accountable for doing so, and willfully handed our rights to federal officials...most of whom are not even elected.
Understanding these things in this book helps understand current events and the loss of liberty that has taken place.over the past 200 years.
It is a good refresher to understand the origins or the U.S. Constitution, what the founders meant, and how it has been trampled.on....almost immediately after ratifying it!
It is a good read (and relevent) given the climate and actions taking place in America now. The behaviors, actions, words, positioning are eerily similar to the things that were going on in the mid-1800s leading up to the War against Southern Independence. Lol. The book takes time to explain, based on the constitution, how the war in the U.S. in the 1860s cannot be, by definition, a civil war.
There are great examples.of Presidents, and especially the supreme court, completely blowingnoff the constitution and usurping power they didnt have to force ideals and law aws, illegally (unconstitutionally), on the American people.
It is also a great book for those that do not understand what a federal republic with respect to what many people think, incorrectly, about what the United States is today.
If you read about the original intentions of the founding fathers amd what the Constitution really meant, and compare that to what jas been done today, you can understand some of the anguish, divisiveness, and down-right stupidity of current events. These things are happening now because we, as a country, didnt adhere to our constitution, didnt hold our officials accountable for doing so, and willfully handed our rights to federal officials...most of whom are not even elected.
Understanding these things in this book helps understand current events and the loss of liberty that has taken place.over the past 200 years.
February 14, 2025
I just finished reading The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution by Kevin Gutzman. The author argues that judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, are replacing the Constitution with their own interpretations of the law. He supports this claim with several key examples and takes an originalist stance.
However, I disagree with the idea that the Constitution is set in stone. Just as the Bible does not explicitly mandate churches, rituals, or a hierarchical ecclesiastical structure, yet these developed over centuries based on religious teachings, the Constitution and its amendments serve as a foundational guide for a secular state.
For instance, the Constitution does not mention the Department of Veterans Affairs, but eliminating it would be unreasonable. More generally, constitutional cases often reach the Supreme Court because legal disputes arise when there is no consensus on a law, often due to a lack of compromise during the legislative process. When lawmakers fail to resolve these issues, the judiciary steps in to provide clarity and stability.
I recommend reading it to gain a broad perspective on American history and the role judges have played in shaping it.
However, I disagree with the idea that the Constitution is set in stone. Just as the Bible does not explicitly mandate churches, rituals, or a hierarchical ecclesiastical structure, yet these developed over centuries based on religious teachings, the Constitution and its amendments serve as a foundational guide for a secular state.
For instance, the Constitution does not mention the Department of Veterans Affairs, but eliminating it would be unreasonable. More generally, constitutional cases often reach the Supreme Court because legal disputes arise when there is no consensus on a law, often due to a lack of compromise during the legislative process. When lawmakers fail to resolve these issues, the judiciary steps in to provide clarity and stability.
I recommend reading it to gain a broad perspective on American history and the role judges have played in shaping it.
June 15, 2020
In this book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution by Kevin R.C. Gutzman, the author relates the development and ratification of the United States Constitution and then focuses on many of the Supreme Court decisions that have impacted rather than interpreted what the signers meant. The net effect of this is a gradual erosion of what the Founders intended, what some refer to as a living Constitution that evolves with the times. But, according to the author, the Founders included provisions for future generations to modify or change the Constitution through the legal meas of debating and passing into law any appropriate Amendments that Americans would support. Instead, the book cites many examples where Supreme Court decisions have essentially resulted in legislation from the bench that usurps the responsibilities of Congress, the actual legislative branch according to the separation of powers that is a keystone of our republican form of government. If you are interested in gaining a better understanding of how our government should work as opposed to how it has been working around the Constitution, you need to add this one to your list!
December 30, 2017
Historical perspective on history's greatest and most influential legal document. Gutzman starts on what compelled the colonists to reject being governed by Parliament and then the making of the Constitution. The remainder of the book is a more or less chronological list of major Supreme Court cases.
Gutzman's main point is that over time, the Supreme Court, as arbiter of the supreme law, has made it increasingly open to interpretation over the years. Put another way, the Constitution is like a wooden block immersed in Play-Doh. In 1787, the block was big and the Play-Doh small, so the courts had little leeway to re-interpret it.
Over time, however, the size of the block decreased while that of the Play-Doh increased, so the highest law can be re-shaped almost any way the court decides. Concurrent with that was both in increase in federal power at the expense of the states, and even individuals.
I would have preferred he went over each article and amendment, and discussed how its been interpreted. Even so, he makes some great points; all law students should read it.
Gutzman's main point is that over time, the Supreme Court, as arbiter of the supreme law, has made it increasingly open to interpretation over the years. Put another way, the Constitution is like a wooden block immersed in Play-Doh. In 1787, the block was big and the Play-Doh small, so the courts had little leeway to re-interpret it.
Over time, however, the size of the block decreased while that of the Play-Doh increased, so the highest law can be re-shaped almost any way the court decides. Concurrent with that was both in increase in federal power at the expense of the states, and even individuals.
I would have preferred he went over each article and amendment, and discussed how its been interpreted. Even so, he makes some great points; all law students should read it.
November 15, 2021
Prof Kevin Gutzman’s book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution” was released in text and audio formats in 2007-2008. The Blackstone audio book is narrated by Tom Weiner. Gutzman’s discussion of the 14th amendment to the U.S Constitution, his insights about Brown vs the Board of Education, and Court rulings on the separation of Church and state are very helpful to my understanding of the controversies and decisions that define today’s legal viewpoints on social justice and religious freedom. Gutzman recommends that the U.S create a constitutional council with members from the 50 states to review the Court’s decisions. I spent 7 hours listening to the book on Hoopla while also reading the book from my public library. It was a wonderful experience. (P/L)
March 2, 2019
I learned quite a bit. Among other facts, I hadn't realized how hard the Constitution had been to ratify, or the actual impact of the Federalist papers, and the 14th Amendment had such a poor history.
That said, around halfway through, the book turned too much to the Supreme Court to the determent of the other branches, and the text was too choppy. Some of that may have been a factor of the type of book being written, since there was a lot of material to get through, but I lost the thread of the discussion a number of times.
It's a decent overview, but could have been a lot better; I was expecting more due to the author, and the series.
That said, around halfway through, the book turned too much to the Supreme Court to the determent of the other branches, and the text was too choppy. Some of that may have been a factor of the type of book being written, since there was a lot of material to get through, but I lost the thread of the discussion a number of times.
It's a decent overview, but could have been a lot better; I was expecting more due to the author, and the series.
May 4, 2021
“Legal training should not be confused with education.” This statement is one of the few unbiased statements in this book, which, although it offered solid insights into textualist Constitutional law, it was pretty baldly critical of federal judicial history. And though I can appreciate that perspective in many ways (and I find the defense of federal judicial history to be biased in its own right in a way that buries the lead), I couldn’t have read this book because the tone was so grating and smug. I listened to this on 2x speed, and it had some interesting points in spite of itself.
August 26, 2021
This book is about US Constitutional history. It is a very biased approach to the subject and while some arguments are well thought out, others seem outdated and do not reflect the current reality the founding fathers of the nation could not have predicted. In the author's mind, the States were robbed of their power by the Supreme Court and the Federal Government. While to a certain extent this is true, I find it hard to imagine a UNITED States if each state was left to its own devices. It is worth reading to see this point of view.
December 11, 2023
Got about halfway through the book before I had to stop. The NLS Talking book library recording is so distorted and has so much noise and static that it's just incomprehensible. Hopefully they can get a better version of it as I would like to finish it someday. I feel like this book was leading to an eventual argument that states rights were the pre-Constitution intention of the founding fathers but, since I couldn't finish the book I'll never know. Darn
July 15, 2017
I gave this 5 stars simply because Gutzman is brilliant. The only reason I'd detract from that score is because I felt that Gutzman was held back in writing this book. That's not his fault, however. He was only allotted so much space by the publisher. Had that not been the case, I'm sure Gutzman would have spilled a lot more ink on such an enormous topic. Otherwise, this book is awesome!
June 21, 2018
This is short, but it doesn't need to be long to prove the main point: the Supreme Court has long ceased fulfilling its designated role and has become the supreme legislator of the nation, enabling ever increasing centralism and essentially amending the Constitution without the need for ratification by the States.
Informative and fun.
Liked it a lot.
Informative and fun.
Liked it a lot.
September 17, 2017
In depth review of the framers' constitution and how the Supreme Court's landmark decisions dismantled what was set in place. Coincidentally enough, those decisions are glorified in modern history courses.
October 23, 2018
The objective of informing readers of how the Supreme Court has abused the Constitution over the last 200+ years is certainly accomplished in this book. Well worth your time. Would have received a 5th star if the conclusions could have been more concise and more memorable.
December 31, 2018
Very interesting book with historical details on the drafting and ratification of the constitution. More than half of the book was devoted to the supreme court--meant to be the least powerful branch of government--has usurped power since the day after ratification. An eye-opening book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews