What do you think?
Rate this book
The Complete Idiot's Guide to the U.S. Constitution
The “living” document that changed the world.
One of the most revered, imitated, and controversial government documents in the world, the U.S. Constitution serves as the foundation for the American government and shapes the lives of Americans every day. But how many know its history and the impact it’s had on American laws and practices throughout history? This guide serves as the most current and accessible handbook to this all-important document.
—Covers the document itself, as well as controversial interpretations and decisions
One of the most revered, imitated, and controversial government documents in the world, the U.S. Constitution serves as the foundation for the American government and shapes the lives of Americans every day. But how many know its history and the impact it’s had on American laws and practices throughout history? This guide serves as the most current and accessible handbook to this all-important document.
—Covers the document itself, as well as controversial interpretations and decisions
304 pages, Paperback
First published October 2, 2007
10 people are currently reading
76 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
December 28, 2008
This is a competent book but which gives a false sense that American democracy "continues to work" as Timothy Harper writes, but the sad truth is that America is broken, dysfunctional, corrupt, partisan, gridlocked, and unable to cope with looming threats. This book can help Americans wanting to learn how to cope with an increasingly intrusive government. It has practical advice for dealing with police and courts. It is well-written, clear and concise. It's a good reference, factually correct. Further, the nice hard cover has a second crease, making it durable yet easy to keep open.
But a pernicious flaw with this book is this: people who read it lightly probably won't get how broken American democracy is. They'll think everything is fine. The text hints at serious problems but you have to carefully ferret them out. The book is like a real estate broker dutifully touting a house's updated kitchen and manicured lawns while omitting the fact that it's on an earthquake fault.
I don't think Timothy Harper intended this oversight. He's a clear-thinking and knowledgeable lawyer who fulfilled a pre-assigned task of explaining to ordinary people how to avoid getting their hair caught in the law's gears. The result is a compact guide for an out-of-towner -- here's America's legal system, accept it as given, learn these quick rules, stay out of trouble, and get back to more interesting sightseeing. There is practical advice about how to handle encounters with police and courts -- "if the police stop you on the street and you push back physically, or if you are disrespectful verbally, you probably will be arrested." If arrested, keep quiet. It's basic stuff.
It's not a history lesson, but a snapshot of today's Constitution -- not the 1787 document but rather "society's agreement to live under the rule of law" as Harper understands the Constitution. While there are helpful references to previous rulings, the focus is working within the Constitutional framework today. Because it's a snapshot, there is little focus on the continuing deterioration of personal liberty and the gradually expanding power of the federal government. It misses how American democracy has decayed substantially. It's like a tour guide of Liberty Park, pointing out trees and ponds, but downplaying the park's dwindling acreage over two hundred years. Before the American Revolution, citizen participation in New England town meetings was vibrant; today, in contrast, participation is practically non-existent. Americans are apathetic, frustrated consumers with little connection to local government, not real citizens (Harper mentions that the Constitution doesn't define citizenship which I see as a serious constitutional defect.) Only half the electorate bothers to do the minimal citizenship task of voting.
Here's one example of how the snapshot approach can gloss over long term deterioration. Harper mentions the eminent domain case of Kelo v. New London (2005), in which private property was seized by city authorities for a competing private use. The Supreme Court nodded (a 5-4 decision.) Harper presents this snapshot as one more issue for future controversy, but doesn't emphasize how this is a serious erosion of our Fifth amendment rights.
The Supreme Court often comes off as Lone Ranger, protecting rights of criminal defendants. Since half of the text focuses on the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, there are plenty of situations in which the Court intervenes to protect the rights of the accused such as the Miranda v. Arizona (1966) decision. But there is little emphasis on the Court's complicity in shifting power away from states to the federal government. In numerous rulings, including creative interpretations of the Commerce Clause, the Court undermined states' regulatory authority. The result is not what the Framers would have intended. In Tocqueville's sense of federalism, the bulk of regulation should be done by state governments because they're in tune with residents' needs; but each state, by itself, is weak militarily, so it's wise to combine states under a national umbrella for protection. So an ideal federal arrangement combines small-state regulatory smarts with the safety of size. What's happened today is that Washington manages much of the economy, but clumsily, and the result is a bloated federal bureaucracy, a labyrinthine tax code, partisanship interfering with foreign policy, gridlock, ineffective state governments, a dangerous concentration of power in the presidency, inability to confront serious looming problems (financial meltdown, global warming, nuclear terrorism), horrendous corruption, and the Supreme Court deserves much blame for creating this mess.
Further, the Supreme Court is highly politicized. Politicization began with Marshall's 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision which usurped the power of striking down legislative acts if deemed "unconstitutional"; in effect, the Supreme Court assumed for itself the power to discipline the legislature. Most constitutional scholars agree the Framers never intended for the Court to have such sweeping power (some even think the decision, itself, was illegal.) Harper notes recent controversial cases (Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore) and hints at their activist nature but doesn't emphasize that the Court is acting like a legislature. British constitutional scholar Adam Tomkins suggests that the judiciary is ill-suited for the role of reining in the government for several reasons, including the fact that it must wait for relevant lesser court cases to bubble up before it can act. There are cogent easy-to-read critical analyses, notably Kevin R. C. Gutzman's excellent "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" -- a sharper book than this one.
There are helpful glimpses of future hot-button issues such as balancing the budget, gun control, abortion, affirmative action, eminent domain, crime & punishment, presidential power, citizen surveillance, and prosecution of terrorists. Harper's pointing out the unconstitutional nature of presidential signing statements suggests he is aware of severe problems ahead, and that if he had been given a different assignment, perhaps a more critical and accurate warning would have emerged from his word processor. I think America will be unable to cope with the problem of nuclear terrorism without substantial revision of the Constitution, and for those interested, read my book "Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism" (Amazon & Kindle, 184 pages.) And therefore I am summoning delegates to a Second Constitutional Convention to meet in Independence Hall in Philadelphia beginning July 4th, 2009.
Overall, a helpful guide but which obscures substantial deterioration in liberty and glosses over serious constitutional problems. It delivers on the basics. It's descriptive, not critical, but given the peculiar challenges facing America today, I find it unintentionally misleading because it may lull unthinking Americans into a false sense that nothing is wrong.
But a pernicious flaw with this book is this: people who read it lightly probably won't get how broken American democracy is. They'll think everything is fine. The text hints at serious problems but you have to carefully ferret them out. The book is like a real estate broker dutifully touting a house's updated kitchen and manicured lawns while omitting the fact that it's on an earthquake fault.
I don't think Timothy Harper intended this oversight. He's a clear-thinking and knowledgeable lawyer who fulfilled a pre-assigned task of explaining to ordinary people how to avoid getting their hair caught in the law's gears. The result is a compact guide for an out-of-towner -- here's America's legal system, accept it as given, learn these quick rules, stay out of trouble, and get back to more interesting sightseeing. There is practical advice about how to handle encounters with police and courts -- "if the police stop you on the street and you push back physically, or if you are disrespectful verbally, you probably will be arrested." If arrested, keep quiet. It's basic stuff.
It's not a history lesson, but a snapshot of today's Constitution -- not the 1787 document but rather "society's agreement to live under the rule of law" as Harper understands the Constitution. While there are helpful references to previous rulings, the focus is working within the Constitutional framework today. Because it's a snapshot, there is little focus on the continuing deterioration of personal liberty and the gradually expanding power of the federal government. It misses how American democracy has decayed substantially. It's like a tour guide of Liberty Park, pointing out trees and ponds, but downplaying the park's dwindling acreage over two hundred years. Before the American Revolution, citizen participation in New England town meetings was vibrant; today, in contrast, participation is practically non-existent. Americans are apathetic, frustrated consumers with little connection to local government, not real citizens (Harper mentions that the Constitution doesn't define citizenship which I see as a serious constitutional defect.) Only half the electorate bothers to do the minimal citizenship task of voting.
Here's one example of how the snapshot approach can gloss over long term deterioration. Harper mentions the eminent domain case of Kelo v. New London (2005), in which private property was seized by city authorities for a competing private use. The Supreme Court nodded (a 5-4 decision.) Harper presents this snapshot as one more issue for future controversy, but doesn't emphasize how this is a serious erosion of our Fifth amendment rights.
The Supreme Court often comes off as Lone Ranger, protecting rights of criminal defendants. Since half of the text focuses on the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, there are plenty of situations in which the Court intervenes to protect the rights of the accused such as the Miranda v. Arizona (1966) decision. But there is little emphasis on the Court's complicity in shifting power away from states to the federal government. In numerous rulings, including creative interpretations of the Commerce Clause, the Court undermined states' regulatory authority. The result is not what the Framers would have intended. In Tocqueville's sense of federalism, the bulk of regulation should be done by state governments because they're in tune with residents' needs; but each state, by itself, is weak militarily, so it's wise to combine states under a national umbrella for protection. So an ideal federal arrangement combines small-state regulatory smarts with the safety of size. What's happened today is that Washington manages much of the economy, but clumsily, and the result is a bloated federal bureaucracy, a labyrinthine tax code, partisanship interfering with foreign policy, gridlock, ineffective state governments, a dangerous concentration of power in the presidency, inability to confront serious looming problems (financial meltdown, global warming, nuclear terrorism), horrendous corruption, and the Supreme Court deserves much blame for creating this mess.
Further, the Supreme Court is highly politicized. Politicization began with Marshall's 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision which usurped the power of striking down legislative acts if deemed "unconstitutional"; in effect, the Supreme Court assumed for itself the power to discipline the legislature. Most constitutional scholars agree the Framers never intended for the Court to have such sweeping power (some even think the decision, itself, was illegal.) Harper notes recent controversial cases (Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore) and hints at their activist nature but doesn't emphasize that the Court is acting like a legislature. British constitutional scholar Adam Tomkins suggests that the judiciary is ill-suited for the role of reining in the government for several reasons, including the fact that it must wait for relevant lesser court cases to bubble up before it can act. There are cogent easy-to-read critical analyses, notably Kevin R. C. Gutzman's excellent "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" -- a sharper book than this one.
There are helpful glimpses of future hot-button issues such as balancing the budget, gun control, abortion, affirmative action, eminent domain, crime & punishment, presidential power, citizen surveillance, and prosecution of terrorists. Harper's pointing out the unconstitutional nature of presidential signing statements suggests he is aware of severe problems ahead, and that if he had been given a different assignment, perhaps a more critical and accurate warning would have emerged from his word processor. I think America will be unable to cope with the problem of nuclear terrorism without substantial revision of the Constitution, and for those interested, read my book "Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism" (Amazon & Kindle, 184 pages.) And therefore I am summoning delegates to a Second Constitutional Convention to meet in Independence Hall in Philadelphia beginning July 4th, 2009.
Overall, a helpful guide but which obscures substantial deterioration in liberty and glosses over serious constitutional problems. It delivers on the basics. It's descriptive, not critical, but given the peculiar challenges facing America today, I find it unintentionally misleading because it may lull unthinking Americans into a false sense that nothing is wrong.
Read
March 1, 2020Good overview of the Constitution and includes a copy of it at the end.
June 8, 2012
As with all Complete Idiot's Guide books, I thought this one did a very good job of explaining it's topic in a way that everyone can understand it. This book covers the entire Constitution and explains all of it in a way that makes it easy to understand. Since the American government is a democracy, it relies on its citizens understanding how it works, and one of the most fundamental things every American needs to understand is the Constitution. This books discusses things every American should know in a very easy to understand way. I would recommend this book to everyone.
http://hmweasley-blog.blogspot.com/20...
http://hmweasley-blog.blogspot.com/20...
February 13, 2009
Although I used this book as a study resource, I did read it from cover to cover and highly recommend it to everyone. It breaks down the US Constitution into terms that anyone can understand and not only applies it to events throughout history and famous court cases, but also spells out point blank, what a the articles and amendments mean to every day people in every day life. I definitely learned a lot from this book!
August 5, 2009
So far this is a good overview of our founding documents. The author uses good examples from law history to help the reader grasp the 'spirit of the law.' I'm going through an 'interested in gov't/politics phase' right now for some reason. I think it has to do with my conservative upbringing and current locale, as well as my more liberal seminary education as well as philosophical interest.
March 31, 2010
I was very disappointed in this book and stopped reading it after the first few chapters. It said things like today the Sons of Liberty would have called themselves freedom fighters and the British would have called thems terrorists. It also said that part of the reason the Americans won the Revolutionary War was because of sheer luck. I don't agree with these ideas so am looking for a different book to help me study the constitution
November 7, 2008
I think everyone needs to start reading about and understanding our rights... that way they can remember what we once took for granted when they're gone via the "liberalization/socialization" of america made possible by Pelosi-Reid-Obama and of course you, the voters
April 2, 2015
It was a good book to teach you how our government is being run as of now.
October 27, 2009
I proved to be an idiot thinking this could be a quick reference book.
Read
March 17, 2012Read this book multiple times before the Constitution Test, and got 100/100 on it!!!! :D
April 16, 2015
A little dated, but it still provides a great framework.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews