What do you think?
Rate this book
America's Constitution: A Biography
In America’s Constitution, one of this era’s most accomplished constitutional law scholars, Akhil Reed Amar, gives the first comprehensive account of one of the world’s great political texts. Incisive, entertaining, and occasionally controversial, this “biography” of America’s framing document explains not only what the Constitution says but also why the Constitution says it. We all know this the Constitution is neither immutable nor perfect. Amar shows us how the story of this one relatively compact document reflects the story of America more generally. (For example, much of the Constitution, including the glorious-sounding “We the People,” was lifted from existing American legal texts, including early state constitutions.) In short, the Constitution was as much a product of its environment as it was a product of its individual creators’ inspired genius.Despite the Constitution’s flaws, its role in guiding our republic has been nothing short of amazing. Skillfully placing the document in the context of late-eighteenth-century American politics, America’s Constitution explains, for instance, whether there is anything in the Constitution that is unamendable; the reason America adopted an electoral college; why a president must be at least thirty-five years old; and why–for now, at least–only those citizens who were born under the American flag can become president. From his unique perspective, Amar also gives us unconventional wisdom about the Constitution and its significance throughout the nation’s history. For one thing, we see that the Constitution has been far more democratic than is conventionally understood. Even though the document was drafted by white landholders, a remarkably large number of citizens (by the standards of 1787) were allowed to vote up or down on it, and the document’s later amendments eventually extended the vote to virtually all Americans. We also learn that the Founders’ Constitution was far more slavocratic than many would the “three fifths” clause gave the South extra political clout for every slave it owned or acquired. As a result, slaveholding Virginians held the presidency all but four of the Republic’s first thirty-six years, and proslavery forces eventually came to dominate much of the federal government prior to Lincoln’s election.Ambitious, even-handed, eminently accessible, and often surprising, America’s Constitution is an indispensable work, bound to become a standard reference for any student of history and all citizens of the United States.
670 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 13, 2005
578 people are currently reading
3859 people want to read
About the author
Akhil Reed Amar
31 books182 followersAkhil Reed Amar is currently Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, where he teaches constitutional law in both Yale College and Yale Law School. He received his B.A, summa cum laude, in 1980 from Yale College, and his J.D. in 1984 from Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of The Yale Law Journal. After clerking for Judge Stephen Breyer, he joined the Yale faculty in 1985. In 1994 he received the Paul Bator award from the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy, and in 1997 he was awarded an honorary doctorate of law by Suffolk University. In 1995 the National Law Journal named him as one of 40 “Rising Stars in the Law,” and in 1997 The American Lawyer placed him on their “Public Sector 45" list. His work on the Bill of Rights also earned the ABA Certificate of Merit and the Yale University Press Governor’s Award. He has delivered endowed lectures at over two dozen colleges and universities, and has written widely on constitutional issues for such publications as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, The New Republic, and Slate. He is also a contributing editor to The American Lawyer. His many law review articles and books have been widely cited by scholars, judges, and lawmakers; for example, the Justices of the United States Supreme Court have invoked his work in more than twenty cases, and he has testified before Congress on a wide range of constitutional issues. Along with Dean Paul Brest and Professors Sanford Levinson, Jack Balkin, and Reva Siegel, Professor Amar is the co-editor of a leading constitutional law casebook, Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking. He is also the author of several books, including The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles (Yale Univ. Press, 1997), The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction (Yale Univ. Press, 1998), America’s Constitution: A Biography (Random House 2005), and most recently, America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By (Basic Books, 2012).
from http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/amarb...
from http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/amarb...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 155 reviews
December 1, 2008
I read a review of this book, which said it is the best book about the Constitution since the Federalist Papers. Hyperbole? A little, but it's not far off the mark. Actually, reading this book makes you realize how few good books there are about the Constitution. Most are either technical works for the law review crowd on one hand, and large print flag-wavers for the coloring book crowd on the other. Amar writes with clarity. Anyone with a high school education can read this book, and enjoy it. Still, this book has plenty of heft. Amar is not afraid to use the words "John Jay," always the sign of a serious work of constitutional scholarship.
The basic structure of this book is simple. Amar marches through the Constitution from the Preamble, straight through to the 28th Amendment. His basic method is to use every bit of historic context-the articles of confederation, state constitutions, british history, the experience of the revolution, Madison's notes, ratification debates, and, of course, the Federalist Papers-to suss out the meaning and intent of every word in the Constitution. Amar's discussions are deep, but surprisingly accessible. Reading this, one is surprised anew at what is, and what is not, in the Constitution. Contra Planned Parenthood, there is no right to privacy. Contra limited gov't types, there is no line item veto. Also, there is no Federal Reserve, IRS, or judicial review. Much of what we think of as the federal gov't is based on nothing more than statute and case law, any of which can be changed on relatively short notice.
My ONLY real complaint. Amar spends relatively little time on Congress's enumerated powers. I would have traded 15 pages of his recurring discussions on apportionment to read more about the commerce clause, for example. We are about to enter a period of congressional activism the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Gingrich Revolution. Proposals to rewrite securities laws, banking laws, reform health care, and change the weather will strain the federal government's "limited" powers. I would have liked to read a little more about this.
This is a great work of history and constitutional interpretation. Although the Founders can be criticized for some shortcomings, namely those provisions that enhanced the power of the slave owning states, much of the framework they created remains in effect to this day (and the slavocentric sections have been amended into oblivion). Amar makes clear that this is a good thing, despite what latter day critics like Howard Zinn and the Living Constitution crowd might think. There really is no reason not to read this.
The basic structure of this book is simple. Amar marches through the Constitution from the Preamble, straight through to the 28th Amendment. His basic method is to use every bit of historic context-the articles of confederation, state constitutions, british history, the experience of the revolution, Madison's notes, ratification debates, and, of course, the Federalist Papers-to suss out the meaning and intent of every word in the Constitution. Amar's discussions are deep, but surprisingly accessible. Reading this, one is surprised anew at what is, and what is not, in the Constitution. Contra Planned Parenthood, there is no right to privacy. Contra limited gov't types, there is no line item veto. Also, there is no Federal Reserve, IRS, or judicial review. Much of what we think of as the federal gov't is based on nothing more than statute and case law, any of which can be changed on relatively short notice.
My ONLY real complaint. Amar spends relatively little time on Congress's enumerated powers. I would have traded 15 pages of his recurring discussions on apportionment to read more about the commerce clause, for example. We are about to enter a period of congressional activism the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Gingrich Revolution. Proposals to rewrite securities laws, banking laws, reform health care, and change the weather will strain the federal government's "limited" powers. I would have liked to read a little more about this.
This is a great work of history and constitutional interpretation. Although the Founders can be criticized for some shortcomings, namely those provisions that enhanced the power of the slave owning states, much of the framework they created remains in effect to this day (and the slavocentric sections have been amended into oblivion). Amar makes clear that this is a good thing, despite what latter day critics like Howard Zinn and the Living Constitution crowd might think. There really is no reason not to read this.
May 17, 2012
This book is not the easiest read, but it's easier to read than I expected for a book written by a legal scholar. The author is careful to say that his analysis of the Constitution is based on his own interpretations of the historical record, and that other scholars have differing views on the subject. Nevertheless, I found the book to be quite compelling, and I learned a lot about why the Framers made the decisions they did. Of course, they weren't perfect people and they had a lot of disagreements about how the Constitution and our system of government should be structured. They could not have foreseen how some of the ideas they decided on for the Constitution are now, I believe, producing problems for the U.S. in the 21st century (the Electoral College, the two-Senators per state, lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices, strict separation of powers, etc). It's astonishing how much slavery influenced the Constitution, how much the Framers bent over backward to accommodate the slave-owning South. I believe that ugly legacy is haunting us today, and is a major reason why our country is struggling to pass progressive legislation and keep up with the modern world. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in how and why the Framers came up with their ideas.
February 15, 2012
The historian HW Brands, in an article in The Atlantic, “Founder’s Chic” (September, 2003), has suggested that the reverence Americans, especially politicians, display toward the Constitution, is ill-placed. (We’re certainly seeing an over-abundance of Constitution worship on the part of the Republican candidates in 2011-2012 as I write this.) He argues the Founders, who barely agreed on anything and filled the final document with compromise after compromise, as revolutionaries, would be quite sympathetic with supporting an evolutionary document.
Amar’s book goes a long way toward developing a thorough understand of the background and historicity of the document which everyone claims to understand but few do; a document that supports both dual (states and federal government share power equally) and cooperative federalism (some powers are reserved to the states but they remain subservient to the federal powers) simultaneously.
We came perilously close to not having a constitution, and I am sure were it to be proposed in today’s climate, with today’s puny Washington minds, it would never be ratified. (Notice that even Michele Bachmann shut up about the Constitution after her little seminar with Scalia - he was probably speaking way over her head.)
It is to the credit of the anti-Federalists, many of whom vigorously attacked the unauthorized work done by the Constitutional Convention (they were supposed to just rewrite the Articles of Confederation) that in the end they approved the Constitution, which in some states did not receive the required two-thirds vote majority, and went on to serve nobly in the new government, e.g., James Monroe.
Some have argued the Constitution was a failure. It lasted only some seventy years and that only because of numerous compromises regarding slavery that became mere band-aids over a festering wound, an issue the original framers had decided to push off for later generations. It wasn’t until the Civil War and especially the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment with its application of rights to the states (albeit later gutted by the selective incorporation dictated by the Slaughterhouse cases in 1873 which mandated selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights)* that one could argue we achieved full freedoms.
The fact remains that much of the Constitution is obscure and leaves wide latitude for interpretation. Sometimes using the words “persons”, sometimes the more populist sounding “people,” the ninth and tenth amendments have provided grist for many in the mill of public opinion. They would appear to “reserve” rights to the people and the states and imply that “nothing in the Bill of Rights should be read as conferring additional government power. . .[but] the Ninth Amendment warned readers not to draw certain types of negative inferences about constitutional rights. . . a text that explicitly expressed certain rights was not to be read to negate other constitutional rights derivable [or implied, a concept that has caused all sorts of controversy] from the document’s general structure.” (pg 327) For example, the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel could not be interpreted to negate a person’s right to represent himself.
It’s ironic that the Federalists generally opposed a “bill of rights” because they feared that such explicit enumeration of rights would weaken generally more expansive protections of the original constitution and unintentionally reduce implicit rights. The Nionth amendment was the compromise that resulted.
I could go on and on as is my usual wont. Amar’s structure for the book is unusual but quite readable, integrating concepts broadly yet chronologically. Chapter headings, “Making Amends” which discusses the first ten amendments, and “The New Birth of Freedom” which reviews events and amendments following the Civil War give only a broad hint as to content, but there is an excellent index and over one hundred pages of notes (I actually prefer footnotes, but then I’m a queer duck.)
*Interestingly Clarence Thomas in McDonald v Chicago while concurring with the majority which used the due process clause to apply the 2nd amendment to the states, wanted to use the privileges and immunities clause which would have strengthened, IMHO, the Bill of Rights in its application to the states across the board. I think he was right.
Amar’s book goes a long way toward developing a thorough understand of the background and historicity of the document which everyone claims to understand but few do; a document that supports both dual (states and federal government share power equally) and cooperative federalism (some powers are reserved to the states but they remain subservient to the federal powers) simultaneously.
We came perilously close to not having a constitution, and I am sure were it to be proposed in today’s climate, with today’s puny Washington minds, it would never be ratified. (Notice that even Michele Bachmann shut up about the Constitution after her little seminar with Scalia - he was probably speaking way over her head.)
It is to the credit of the anti-Federalists, many of whom vigorously attacked the unauthorized work done by the Constitutional Convention (they were supposed to just rewrite the Articles of Confederation) that in the end they approved the Constitution, which in some states did not receive the required two-thirds vote majority, and went on to serve nobly in the new government, e.g., James Monroe.
Some have argued the Constitution was a failure. It lasted only some seventy years and that only because of numerous compromises regarding slavery that became mere band-aids over a festering wound, an issue the original framers had decided to push off for later generations. It wasn’t until the Civil War and especially the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment with its application of rights to the states (albeit later gutted by the selective incorporation dictated by the Slaughterhouse cases in 1873 which mandated selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights)* that one could argue we achieved full freedoms.
The fact remains that much of the Constitution is obscure and leaves wide latitude for interpretation. Sometimes using the words “persons”, sometimes the more populist sounding “people,” the ninth and tenth amendments have provided grist for many in the mill of public opinion. They would appear to “reserve” rights to the people and the states and imply that “nothing in the Bill of Rights should be read as conferring additional government power. . .[but] the Ninth Amendment warned readers not to draw certain types of negative inferences about constitutional rights. . . a text that explicitly expressed certain rights was not to be read to negate other constitutional rights derivable [or implied, a concept that has caused all sorts of controversy] from the document’s general structure.” (pg 327) For example, the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel could not be interpreted to negate a person’s right to represent himself.
It’s ironic that the Federalists generally opposed a “bill of rights” because they feared that such explicit enumeration of rights would weaken generally more expansive protections of the original constitution and unintentionally reduce implicit rights. The Nionth amendment was the compromise that resulted.
I could go on and on as is my usual wont. Amar’s structure for the book is unusual but quite readable, integrating concepts broadly yet chronologically. Chapter headings, “Making Amends” which discusses the first ten amendments, and “The New Birth of Freedom” which reviews events and amendments following the Civil War give only a broad hint as to content, but there is an excellent index and over one hundred pages of notes (I actually prefer footnotes, but then I’m a queer duck.)
*Interestingly Clarence Thomas in McDonald v Chicago while concurring with the majority which used the due process clause to apply the 2nd amendment to the states, wanted to use the privileges and immunities clause which would have strengthened, IMHO, the Bill of Rights in its application to the states across the board. I think he was right.
November 1, 2014
Amar pretty much goes Section by Section, Amendment by Amendment, though the Constitution and explains what it all means and provides the historical context. There is a strong emphasis on slavery (he considers the Constitution a powerfully pro-slavery document, becoming more pro-slavery as time went on due to the three-fifths clause, until the Civil War). His discussion of the Second Amendment was enlightening. He also makes the point that we need to unlearn the "fact" that we live in a republic rather than a democracy, as the Founders intended. They actually used those terms interchangeably. So go ahead, repeat after me: "We live in a democracy. Or a republic. Whatevs."
I can't say there weren't long passages where my eyes didn't glaze over, but still, this is a book accessible to both a scholarly reader and a mere history or law buff. Of course, the full text of the Constitution and Amendments are in the back for reference.
477 pages of text; 127 pages of notes.
June 11, 2021
An outstanding exploration of the Constitution. It's called a biography, because it literally breaks down the whole document, line by line, and really picks through the Founding Fathers' intentions and the history/context of the time behind it.
As a member of the armed forces who was sworn to support and defend this document, I highly, highly suggest this book to anyone who has done the same. In fact, it should be your first professional read. It has helped inspire me to really own my appointment and serve to the best of my ability.
For everyone else, this book brings a crucial context to modern political infrastructure and could help the general public make informed decisions on which direction we want our nation to go. His last chapter highlights the unwritten space at the end of the Constitution as one of the most crucial sections. That part is for us to write together as the sovereign people of the United States of America.
As a member of the armed forces who was sworn to support and defend this document, I highly, highly suggest this book to anyone who has done the same. In fact, it should be your first professional read. It has helped inspire me to really own my appointment and serve to the best of my ability.
For everyone else, this book brings a crucial context to modern political infrastructure and could help the general public make informed decisions on which direction we want our nation to go. His last chapter highlights the unwritten space at the end of the Constitution as one of the most crucial sections. That part is for us to write together as the sovereign people of the United States of America.
March 10, 2009
This book is jam-packed with surprisingly worthwhile information on almost every clause of the constitution.
Its structure follows the constitution itself, from preamble to amendments, and although this might have given it the feeling of a reference book, Amar's interest in the document more than makes up for the lack of narrative.
He plumbs the origins of the electoral system (slavery concerns were at the root of it, as in much else), the unforeseen consequences of the 22nd amendment limiting presidential terms (vice presidents became immensely more prestigious and powerful) and the interactions between federal and state constitutions (although the federal is modeled after Massachusett's 1780 constitution, afterwards states tended to mimic the national constitution).
A great overview of the US government as seen through the constitution
February 2, 2025
While this book is a bit dated, it is more relevant now than ever before.
This book uses a comparative analysis of the colonies constitution at the founding, case law, and the history of the amendment process in the context of the times of the amendments to argue that the constitution is truly about we the people. Using a variety of sources including lots of the federalist papers, case law, and at times a comparative political and legal analysis from England and other western democracies, this book is an easy to read deep dive into to the different parts of the constitution including congressional powers, presidential powers, judicial powers, and the amendment process and reasons.
This book uses a comparative analysis of the colonies constitution at the founding, case law, and the history of the amendment process in the context of the times of the amendments to argue that the constitution is truly about we the people. Using a variety of sources including lots of the federalist papers, case law, and at times a comparative political and legal analysis from England and other western democracies, this book is an easy to read deep dive into to the different parts of the constitution including congressional powers, presidential powers, judicial powers, and the amendment process and reasons.
October 26, 2017
Short Review: This was fascinating, detail, occasionally boring and still left me wanting more with some areas. I spend five months slowly working through this. There is about 450 pages of main content, which did feel both too long and not long enough. There is so much that could be written. But in an overview, you cannot talk about everything.
What is most helpful is that Amar uses history, comparative legal analysis (with state constitutions, English common law and notes from drafts), legal history from court cases and political science analysis of what was possible to have been based based on political realities on the ground. This is more than just an analysis of what is in the constitution. That is here as well, but the parts around what is in the constitution is helpful to give context to the actual content.
I think the best sections are the sections on the role and politics of slavery. That analysis is was very helpful to understanding not only the sections on 3/5 clause but the politics around other compromises that were impacted by slavery.
It is a bit dry in places. But I am not sure that large sections of the book, could have been cut without harming the larger flow. I did think as I was reading it that it could have been re-organized in places. There was a fair amount of repetition that could have been cut. But most of those repetitive sections made sense if someone was trying to read different areas of the constitution instead of reading the book as a whole straight through.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/americas-constitution/
What is most helpful is that Amar uses history, comparative legal analysis (with state constitutions, English common law and notes from drafts), legal history from court cases and political science analysis of what was possible to have been based based on political realities on the ground. This is more than just an analysis of what is in the constitution. That is here as well, but the parts around what is in the constitution is helpful to give context to the actual content.
I think the best sections are the sections on the role and politics of slavery. That analysis is was very helpful to understanding not only the sections on 3/5 clause but the politics around other compromises that were impacted by slavery.
It is a bit dry in places. But I am not sure that large sections of the book, could have been cut without harming the larger flow. I did think as I was reading it that it could have been re-organized in places. There was a fair amount of repetition that could have been cut. But most of those repetitive sections made sense if someone was trying to read different areas of the constitution instead of reading the book as a whole straight through.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/americas-constitution/
December 27, 2018
America’s Constitution by Akhil Reed Amar is brilliant and enthralling. All of the Articles in the Constitution have an interesting history as to why they exist. Looking through a wide range of sources from The Federalist Papers to personal missives from the founding fathers, we can see that the Constitution was a massive political balancing act attempting to appease everyone in the emergent United States.
The book goes through all the Articles as I mentioned before, and it has parts that cover the Amendments to the Constitution. It covers the political situations that forced the hand of lawmakers and it talks about other historical events as well. The end of the book contains the full Constitution with all of the Amendments. In the margins, it contains the page numbers where the book discusses that particular law. The book contains extensive notes and an index.
All in all, this book is really good. It is thoroughly researched and very interesting.
The book goes through all the Articles as I mentioned before, and it has parts that cover the Amendments to the Constitution. It covers the political situations that forced the hand of lawmakers and it talks about other historical events as well. The end of the book contains the full Constitution with all of the Amendments. In the margins, it contains the page numbers where the book discusses that particular law. The book contains extensive notes and an index.
All in all, this book is really good. It is thoroughly researched and very interesting.
June 17, 2023
Probably the most definitive and informative books I've read on the Constitution. Awhile Reed Amar is one of the most authoritative writer on this topic. But this book is not for the faint of heart. It is a slog in many parts. It is deep so I found myself only able to read sometimes 5 pages before I had to put it down to rest.
This should be a must read for everyone before they ever comment on anything regarding constitutional issues (Twitter, anyone?). But once you commit just be prepared to take a bit of time as you work your way through it.
This should be a must read for everyone before they ever comment on anything regarding constitutional issues (Twitter, anyone?). But once you commit just be prepared to take a bit of time as you work your way through it.
April 22, 2022
Five stars if you are a teacher / lifelong learner of the Constitution and already have some background.
Amar is one of my favorite constitutional scholars, and I always appreciate his insight when he is a guest on National Constitution Center podcasts. This book is thick, and probably isn’t the best place to start a deeper education into the Constitution (I would instead recommend Linda Monk’s work). However, if you have some background and want a deeper understanding, this is a fantastic read.
Would love to see Amar publish an updated edition with modern implications of the Trump era. Maybe someday!
Amar is one of my favorite constitutional scholars, and I always appreciate his insight when he is a guest on National Constitution Center podcasts. This book is thick, and probably isn’t the best place to start a deeper education into the Constitution (I would instead recommend Linda Monk’s work). However, if you have some background and want a deeper understanding, this is a fantastic read.
Would love to see Amar publish an updated edition with modern implications of the Trump era. Maybe someday!
Read
June 17, 2025probably should be required reading for law students alongside Con Law—helpful historical context in understanding the Constitution, and Amar does a decent job presenting several interpretations of the same events and text.
July 13, 2018
This isn’t a biography, but a historical (and occasionally linguistic) analysis of the Constitution. There are some really interesting points, particularly early on. Why did it make sense for the Colonies to form one country instead of separate countries, particularly given the dramatic disagreement over slavery, which, as Amar points out repetitively, is reflected throughout the Constitution in ways very favorable to the slave states. But the Constitution is repetitive in parts, and many of the same historical questions cover different sections, and accordingly the book covers the same territory more than once. But the Constitution and the history are both dense, and multiple readings from slightly different perspectives are not unrewarding. More than that, focusing on the language of the Constitution, and not just the Amendments which may be more familiar, demonstrates how clunky some of the language is, but how elegant (and controversial) were some of the provisions, a lesson that in our time is worth repeating (and rereading).
September 2, 2013
It took more determination than usual but I finished. This book is not a light read. It is telling that the author begins his postscript, "Any reader hardy enough to have made it thus far deserves both my thanks and an explanation."
The author takes you through the Constitution virtually line by line. He illustrates how the document was conceived in 1787 and the motivations of Madison and the other authors. Every article and amendment is discussed in terms of the motivations of the authors, the various interpretations and the consequences both intended and unintended. Part of the reason the book is so challenging is because Amar makes you realize how carefully the Constitution needs to be read. At times I felt like I was reading a text book. But I found the book became much more readable as he moved into the discussion of the amendments, particularly those of the reconstruction period.
Anyone who has a deep interest in American history will find this to be well worth the effort. It can sometimes be a bit dry but you will come away with a much better understanding of the Constitution and American history.
The author takes you through the Constitution virtually line by line. He illustrates how the document was conceived in 1787 and the motivations of Madison and the other authors. Every article and amendment is discussed in terms of the motivations of the authors, the various interpretations and the consequences both intended and unintended. Part of the reason the book is so challenging is because Amar makes you realize how carefully the Constitution needs to be read. At times I felt like I was reading a text book. But I found the book became much more readable as he moved into the discussion of the amendments, particularly those of the reconstruction period.
Anyone who has a deep interest in American history will find this to be well worth the effort. It can sometimes be a bit dry but you will come away with a much better understanding of the Constitution and American history.
April 1, 2010
Amar tries to provide what he calls a "biography" of the US Constitution, combining scholarship from law, history, and political science. He introduces some controversial ideas, such as his claim that the Philadelphia plan was essentially slavocratic--and became more so over time because of the unintended effects of the 3/5 compromise on the distribution of power in the house, the Senate, and (through the electoral college) the Presidency (and thus the Supreme Court). Amar shows how through the amending process the Constitution has expanded liberty over time. I was fascinated by his analysis of how the seemingly small decision to list amendments at the end of the document rather than changing the text itself made the Constitution a guide to its own history. Not everyone will agree with everything Amar argues, and some sections may be too dense and detailed for some, but this is an excellent analysis of the Constitution.
Read
August 2, 2011An ambitious blend of legal, historical, and political-science scholarship, this book examines in depth nearly ever aspect of our foundational document and how it got to be that way, including all 27 amendments so far. Law and history geeks will love it. Chapters 1-2 (on the Articles of Confederation, the process of enactment, and the basic structure of American government), 7 (state-federal relations), and 9-10 (the first 15 amendments) should be required reading for all Americans. Among other things, these chapters show how the original constitutional was in various ways more democratic, more geostrategically motivated, and more designed to entrench the system of slavery than is generally known; and how the post-Civil War amendments radically reshaped our nation's charter, in essence constituting a second founding.
Want to read
September 28, 2009Referenced in Tribe's Invisible Constitution (p. 52-53): "As a committed "constitutional textualist," Professor Amar rejects the theory that the Constitution can be amended informally, without any change in its official text. His highly original work of Scholarship "America's Constitution: A biography" argues, however, that what constitutes the Constitution's text has been misunderstood by historians and legal scholars alike. By viewing the Constitution in historical context, by attributing globally transformative meaning to each textually promulgated constitutional change, and by giving more textual weight to the post -1865 formal constitutional amendments, Amar reads the written Constitution as a far more progressive text than the Constitution imagined by conservative textualists."
January 16, 2012
Absolutely wonderful history of the document everyone talks about but few understand. Amar provides context with lucidity and deep scholarly understanding, describing the whys and wherefores of how our founding legal basis was created, established, and added to. While fairly detailed, this is written in such language that the nonscholar will have no difficulty. I could almost suggest this be taught in high school. It would dispel many of the myths commonly believed by most people, even those whose jobs encompass telling the rest of us what the Constitution says and means.
May 17, 2012
I think Akhil Amar is one of the most interesting thinkers out there. This book nicely and comprehensively walks through the Constitution, providing a descriptive, historic overview of its creation along with Amar's distinct analyses as to the history of its creation and the interpretations of various provisions. One of the few books of its kind that is just as good for lawyers as for laypeople.
July 30, 2017
I studied the Constitution for a couple of weeks in my high school American History class, I have read it through several times over the years – several more times in the last 8 years, and I have read and studied the Federalist Papers in the past and again in the last 8 years. I would never claim to be an expert on the Constitution, but I felt I had pretty good understanding of it. Amar’s book has convinced me otherwise.
Amar examines the Constitution from the Preamble; article by article, and amendment by amendment, to the final amendment #27. He tackles it principal by principal – sometimes sentence by sentence bringing forth many issues. His analysis involves laws existing at the time, the impact of state and colonial constitutions, actions perpetrated by England against the Colonies that the Constitution was designed to prevent the new government from copying, negotiations that led to final draft of the Constitutional, things the drafters said at the time and later, arguments presented on both sides during the national debate over the ratification, etc. He provides a similarly thorough examination of each of the 27 amendments. Following are some things where I have been way off center.
I understood the 3/5ths rule whereby slave states could count 3/5ths of the total number of slaves within its borders when calculating how many representatives they would have in the House of Representatives. I recognized it as a necessary compromise not realizing that this also gave southern states the 3/5ths credit when the number of presidential electoral votes was allotted. Without examining the impact of that compromise during the antebellum years, one fails to recognize how racist the Constitution was in its impact on the whole country. This compromise gave southern states outsized impact on the legal culture of the country. Five of the first six Presidents were from the South. Because the Supreme Court Justices were selected by the President (with advice and consent of the Senate) this gave Southern States a leg up to pack the Supreme Court with justices that leaned toward southern slave interests. All branches of the government were tilted toward southern interests – slavery being the primary concern. This resulted in many laws and legal decisions that favored slavery, including the infamous Dred Scott decision. In addition to the obvious 3/5ths rule, there are other clauses in the Constitution that support slavery without using the word slavery. Things that support legal entitlement to property across state lines and property taxation that protect slaveowners from some taxes on slaves as property are a couple of examples.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments corrected the slavery tilt of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the southerners and the Democratic Party managed to weaken the impact of these amendments until the 1960’s when bipartisan efforts finally corrected the legal impediments. Regrettably, complete equality has not yet been achieved, but that is another story, not directly related to the Constitution.
My understanding of the 2nd amendment was strongly in agreement with my gun-toting friends. However, understanding how militias were organized and used during colonial times and the impact militias played in the revolutionary war, contrasted to the laws England tried to use to limit people’s right to bear arms, leads me to different conclusion. When militias were called up, the government could not arm them; militias depended upon the personal arms of the people. Thinking logically about the important part militia played in the late 18th century America, I don’t believe there would be an amendment regarding arms if it were not for the roll personal arms played when calling up the militia. Today, whether it be the federal military or state national guards, arms are provide by the government. This fact tends to make the 2nd amendment irrelevent. However, there are other constitutional arguments in favor of individual rights to own arms. After the civil war, the concept of “the people” being seen as a group, evolved into individuals with individual rights and the right of persons to have and bear arms shifted from a militia concept to an individual right. On top of that, the 9th and 10th amendments preclude the government from exerting any power not expressly given in the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not give the government the power to legislate against individual ownership of arms, it cannot pass laws to control those rights, (Although many interpret the commerce clause as an invalidation of all constitutional control over government, I reject that). Consequently, I still support the individual’s right to own and use arms as a constitutional right, but I do it based upon a different interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments.
Well, I’m not going to detail all the other misconceptions I had.
Some other interesting facts I wasn’t aware of. Road Island did not send representatives to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Road Island did not ratify the Constitution and become a state until after the United States was formed; when George Washington took office, the United States consisted of only twelve states.
This was the most enlightening book I have studied related to the Constitution. It was well worth the read and I’ll probably read it again.
Amar examines the Constitution from the Preamble; article by article, and amendment by amendment, to the final amendment #27. He tackles it principal by principal – sometimes sentence by sentence bringing forth many issues. His analysis involves laws existing at the time, the impact of state and colonial constitutions, actions perpetrated by England against the Colonies that the Constitution was designed to prevent the new government from copying, negotiations that led to final draft of the Constitutional, things the drafters said at the time and later, arguments presented on both sides during the national debate over the ratification, etc. He provides a similarly thorough examination of each of the 27 amendments. Following are some things where I have been way off center.
I understood the 3/5ths rule whereby slave states could count 3/5ths of the total number of slaves within its borders when calculating how many representatives they would have in the House of Representatives. I recognized it as a necessary compromise not realizing that this also gave southern states the 3/5ths credit when the number of presidential electoral votes was allotted. Without examining the impact of that compromise during the antebellum years, one fails to recognize how racist the Constitution was in its impact on the whole country. This compromise gave southern states outsized impact on the legal culture of the country. Five of the first six Presidents were from the South. Because the Supreme Court Justices were selected by the President (with advice and consent of the Senate) this gave Southern States a leg up to pack the Supreme Court with justices that leaned toward southern slave interests. All branches of the government were tilted toward southern interests – slavery being the primary concern. This resulted in many laws and legal decisions that favored slavery, including the infamous Dred Scott decision. In addition to the obvious 3/5ths rule, there are other clauses in the Constitution that support slavery without using the word slavery. Things that support legal entitlement to property across state lines and property taxation that protect slaveowners from some taxes on slaves as property are a couple of examples.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments corrected the slavery tilt of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the southerners and the Democratic Party managed to weaken the impact of these amendments until the 1960’s when bipartisan efforts finally corrected the legal impediments. Regrettably, complete equality has not yet been achieved, but that is another story, not directly related to the Constitution.
My understanding of the 2nd amendment was strongly in agreement with my gun-toting friends. However, understanding how militias were organized and used during colonial times and the impact militias played in the revolutionary war, contrasted to the laws England tried to use to limit people’s right to bear arms, leads me to different conclusion. When militias were called up, the government could not arm them; militias depended upon the personal arms of the people. Thinking logically about the important part militia played in the late 18th century America, I don’t believe there would be an amendment regarding arms if it were not for the roll personal arms played when calling up the militia. Today, whether it be the federal military or state national guards, arms are provide by the government. This fact tends to make the 2nd amendment irrelevent. However, there are other constitutional arguments in favor of individual rights to own arms. After the civil war, the concept of “the people” being seen as a group, evolved into individuals with individual rights and the right of persons to have and bear arms shifted from a militia concept to an individual right. On top of that, the 9th and 10th amendments preclude the government from exerting any power not expressly given in the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not give the government the power to legislate against individual ownership of arms, it cannot pass laws to control those rights, (Although many interpret the commerce clause as an invalidation of all constitutional control over government, I reject that). Consequently, I still support the individual’s right to own and use arms as a constitutional right, but I do it based upon a different interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments.
Well, I’m not going to detail all the other misconceptions I had.
Some other interesting facts I wasn’t aware of. Road Island did not send representatives to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Road Island did not ratify the Constitution and become a state until after the United States was formed; when George Washington took office, the United States consisted of only twelve states.
This was the most enlightening book I have studied related to the Constitution. It was well worth the read and I’ll probably read it again.
January 6, 2013
A great book that I highly recommend. This is a book, which, along with a few other books and articles, has come to really guide my current approach and understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
January 17, 2014
a great American history book!
July 18, 2017
Far superior to the follow up book "The Unwritten Constitution", A Biography is fairly interesting and contributes a lot to my historical understanding of the Constitution. The book is not by any means an exhaustive exploration of the Constitution, rather it is a commentary on various parts that Amar finds interesting or has clever observations on. A word on the language and tone of the book. It does not read like a typical law book, which seems a bit authoritative. Amar's writing gushes (Posner compared it to the demeanor of a cheerleader), can be snide and sometimes trips over itself in trying to be clever or referential (there is at least one joke in the book punning Taft's weight). It's an open question whether that's a good or a bad tone for this kind of book.
The strength of this book is the various historical research that Amar discusses as well as the more grounded non-obvious implications of the text of the constitution. Particularly interesting to me, was the question of the legality of the constitution. He raises the question on how the Articles of Confederation could properly be replaced by the Constitution and answers it by explaining treaty conceptions of the 18th century which allowed rescission in the event of breach (which state breached though, was left unclear politically). Amar shows that the ratification process was remarkably democratic (at least for the time), and that many states suspended property qualifications and none increased qualifications for the conventions which bolstered the popular aspect of ratification (both dodging the state legislatures who loathed to give up their power and increasing the Framer's consideration to make the document democratic to receive an affirmative vote [though Amar's arguments that the framers were particularly populist and that the republic was the same as democracy in their eyes are not compelling arguments]). However, the document was also flawed by the 3/5 clause, which gave recognition to slavery and extra power to the slave states by increasing their power in Congress and in presidential elections and therefore indirectly on judicial appointments. Amar argues controversially that the constitution structurally does not allow secession (being based on the model of the Union between Scotland and England) and that the Civil War fundamentally changed the second amendment (during the revolution, the threat was seen as the central government [hence the need for state militias to be armed], but in the antebellum era with its disenfranchisement, gag rules and revolt against a fairly elected president, the states had become the threats to be fixed by the federal government [and with it, the evolution of the second amendment an individual right]). Amar discusses the interesting implications of the age requirement of officials, which prevented dynasties of favored sons, and residency requirement which prevented the practice of rotten boroughs. There is also somewhat randomly, a refutation of Ackerman's theory of extra-consitutional "constitutional moments", particularly applied to the 14th amendment. Amar also goes through the history of the amendments, discussing their historical context and implications (an interesting one is the innovation of limiting when an amendment can take effect, seemingly allowing modifications to article 5 procedures). There's many other fascinating and controversial arguments made in the rest of the book (from the strange ratification of the 27th amendment [proposed by the first congress but only ratified in 1992 after a letter writing campaign from a college student] to the 12th amendment modifying elections in light of the realities of political parties). A good reference book to keep around for its interesting tidbits alone.
A major weakness of the book is that it's filled with rather idiosyncratic views of Amar on the constitution (though to be fair he indicates the originality of some of these views in the postscript). Some of these views (repetitive from Unwritten Constitution) include the idea that the suffrage amendment on its face entitles women to sit on the jury (apparently an idea derived from certain legislative history from the adoption of the 14th amendment) , since juries vote, the idea that federal statutes always override treaties (rather than later in time, because of the order they are mentioned in the Constitution), and the view that each branch was empowered to decide on the constitutionality of various laws not the supreme court alone (though this view seems historically supported by the scholarship of Gordon Wood). Amar argues that structurally, the constitution gives the executive expansive powers to deal with emergencies and unforeseeable circumstances, and that the list of executive powers is demonstrative, not exhaustive. While not all of these completely unrooted in scholarship or history, they are considered heterodox by doctrine and an unwary reader is not warned of that fact. Overall, a good read for someone interested in the somewhat arcane historical background of the Constitution than current legal practice.
The strength of this book is the various historical research that Amar discusses as well as the more grounded non-obvious implications of the text of the constitution. Particularly interesting to me, was the question of the legality of the constitution. He raises the question on how the Articles of Confederation could properly be replaced by the Constitution and answers it by explaining treaty conceptions of the 18th century which allowed rescission in the event of breach (which state breached though, was left unclear politically). Amar shows that the ratification process was remarkably democratic (at least for the time), and that many states suspended property qualifications and none increased qualifications for the conventions which bolstered the popular aspect of ratification (both dodging the state legislatures who loathed to give up their power and increasing the Framer's consideration to make the document democratic to receive an affirmative vote [though Amar's arguments that the framers were particularly populist and that the republic was the same as democracy in their eyes are not compelling arguments]). However, the document was also flawed by the 3/5 clause, which gave recognition to slavery and extra power to the slave states by increasing their power in Congress and in presidential elections and therefore indirectly on judicial appointments. Amar argues controversially that the constitution structurally does not allow secession (being based on the model of the Union between Scotland and England) and that the Civil War fundamentally changed the second amendment (during the revolution, the threat was seen as the central government [hence the need for state militias to be armed], but in the antebellum era with its disenfranchisement, gag rules and revolt against a fairly elected president, the states had become the threats to be fixed by the federal government [and with it, the evolution of the second amendment an individual right]). Amar discusses the interesting implications of the age requirement of officials, which prevented dynasties of favored sons, and residency requirement which prevented the practice of rotten boroughs. There is also somewhat randomly, a refutation of Ackerman's theory of extra-consitutional "constitutional moments", particularly applied to the 14th amendment. Amar also goes through the history of the amendments, discussing their historical context and implications (an interesting one is the innovation of limiting when an amendment can take effect, seemingly allowing modifications to article 5 procedures). There's many other fascinating and controversial arguments made in the rest of the book (from the strange ratification of the 27th amendment [proposed by the first congress but only ratified in 1992 after a letter writing campaign from a college student] to the 12th amendment modifying elections in light of the realities of political parties). A good reference book to keep around for its interesting tidbits alone.
A major weakness of the book is that it's filled with rather idiosyncratic views of Amar on the constitution (though to be fair he indicates the originality of some of these views in the postscript). Some of these views (repetitive from Unwritten Constitution) include the idea that the suffrage amendment on its face entitles women to sit on the jury (apparently an idea derived from certain legislative history from the adoption of the 14th amendment) , since juries vote, the idea that federal statutes always override treaties (rather than later in time, because of the order they are mentioned in the Constitution), and the view that each branch was empowered to decide on the constitutionality of various laws not the supreme court alone (though this view seems historically supported by the scholarship of Gordon Wood). Amar argues that structurally, the constitution gives the executive expansive powers to deal with emergencies and unforeseeable circumstances, and that the list of executive powers is demonstrative, not exhaustive. While not all of these completely unrooted in scholarship or history, they are considered heterodox by doctrine and an unwary reader is not warned of that fact. Overall, a good read for someone interested in the somewhat arcane historical background of the Constitution than current legal practice.
July 8, 2019
Today I am less stupid than yesterday
May 20, 2020
For all our talk in the United States about the Constitution, relatively few of us have ever bothered to read it. As the author laments in his Preface, "university professors who teach constitutional law often neglect to assign the document itself." Admittedly, he places that remark in the context of a paragraph encouraging not merely reading the Constitution but spending some time studying its meaning and history in greater depth. And fair enough. If relatively few of us have bothered to read the Constitution, even fewer have taken the time to engage in even a casual scholarly examination of the spirit behind the text. This book does a remarkable job of capturing that spirit.
I'm a dyed in the wool interdisciplinarian, almost to the point that I won't bother studying something if it doesn't have implications to some other field of inquiry (I exaggerate, but not as much as you might think). It was therefore refreshing to read a book such as this one, which places the Constitution not only within the legal context emanating from its text but also in its place within the studies of history and political science. This is the book to read if you want to understand not only what the Constitution says but why it says it.
To be sure, and by the author's own admission, this book presents one man's view of the Constitution. On several points, reasonable minds may disagree. Give the author his due, though. While advocating his own perspective, he's quick to acknowledge any genuine controversies both in a Postscript and in more than 100 pages of notes. When one disagrees with Professor Amar's assertions--as I do with a few points--one doesn't need to look very far to uncover the deeper threads of academic debate. That said, even when I do disagree with the author, I have to respect his opinion and analysis. One might disagree with a few of his conclusions, in other words, but one would be hard-pressed to question the reasoning behind them.
Ultimately, my largest criticisms of this book have little to do with the author's opinions or analysis, which overall seem quite well founded. Rather, I found myself occasionally disappointed by some of the book's omissions. Most notably, the book has little to say about modern-day interpretations of Constitutional clauses and how they've been applied by the Supreme Court (and inferior courts) throughout American history. This is not an oversight, and is acknowledged in the Postscript as merely beyond the author's purpose in situating the Constitution within its legal, political, and historical context. Again, fair enough. Those inclusions would easily double the length of the book. Still, I would have welcomed *some* more of this kind of analysis, particularly in light of the author's fundamental argument that the Constitution is not merely a document but a deed, and one still in progress.
Overall, though, I can't recommend this book highly enough. This is not your middle school civics book. This is a serious examination of a document we should all hold dear.
I'm a dyed in the wool interdisciplinarian, almost to the point that I won't bother studying something if it doesn't have implications to some other field of inquiry (I exaggerate, but not as much as you might think). It was therefore refreshing to read a book such as this one, which places the Constitution not only within the legal context emanating from its text but also in its place within the studies of history and political science. This is the book to read if you want to understand not only what the Constitution says but why it says it.
To be sure, and by the author's own admission, this book presents one man's view of the Constitution. On several points, reasonable minds may disagree. Give the author his due, though. While advocating his own perspective, he's quick to acknowledge any genuine controversies both in a Postscript and in more than 100 pages of notes. When one disagrees with Professor Amar's assertions--as I do with a few points--one doesn't need to look very far to uncover the deeper threads of academic debate. That said, even when I do disagree with the author, I have to respect his opinion and analysis. One might disagree with a few of his conclusions, in other words, but one would be hard-pressed to question the reasoning behind them.
Ultimately, my largest criticisms of this book have little to do with the author's opinions or analysis, which overall seem quite well founded. Rather, I found myself occasionally disappointed by some of the book's omissions. Most notably, the book has little to say about modern-day interpretations of Constitutional clauses and how they've been applied by the Supreme Court (and inferior courts) throughout American history. This is not an oversight, and is acknowledged in the Postscript as merely beyond the author's purpose in situating the Constitution within its legal, political, and historical context. Again, fair enough. Those inclusions would easily double the length of the book. Still, I would have welcomed *some* more of this kind of analysis, particularly in light of the author's fundamental argument that the Constitution is not merely a document but a deed, and one still in progress.
Overall, though, I can't recommend this book highly enough. This is not your middle school civics book. This is a serious examination of a document we should all hold dear.
September 16, 2020
This is the history of the U.S. Constitution, not only how it was written but how that then shaped the politics of American society. It is dense, deep and extremely important in our current political arguments.
Why I started this book: At the start of shelter at home, I had big plans to read the huge books on my Professional Reading list. Stuck at home, with plenty of time I could tackle them easily.
Why I finished it: I should have realized the flaws in my logic when I didn't even pick it up the first two months. And when I finally did pick it up, I had to read this in small chunks. This was an awesome idea for a book, tying the legal text of the Constitution, to the consequences of the policies and adding the political context of it's passage/creation. But it turns out that the Founding of our country was extremely racists and pro-slavery. And while the original document hid that under high sounding rhetoric, the consequences especially of the 3/5 compromise, weighted the political balance towards the South. We elected more Presidents and justices from the South because of this imbalance which in turn strengthen slavery further. (Amar recommended Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power to see this in action.) The Civil War brought this slide to a head, and produced an anti-slavery Reconstruction with several amendments. Amar pointed out that the choice to add amendments to the bottom of the U.S. Constitution instead of rewriting the document, shows the progression of ideas, the layering and widening of freedom. My favorite part of the book was the Postscript, where Amar went chapter by chapter and pointed out where his opinion/writing differed or aligned with constitutional scholars. This would have been an awesome textbook, but it was not a light summer read. However it was necessary, and it did influence my views on the current protests, counter-protests, election and statements from our current President.
Amar points out that the Constitution has an imperfect legacy, but that is a living document that we can still shape. The most important part of the constitution might be the blank space at the end, for us to add more amendments and preserve democracy.
Why I started this book: At the start of shelter at home, I had big plans to read the huge books on my Professional Reading list. Stuck at home, with plenty of time I could tackle them easily.
Why I finished it: I should have realized the flaws in my logic when I didn't even pick it up the first two months. And when I finally did pick it up, I had to read this in small chunks. This was an awesome idea for a book, tying the legal text of the Constitution, to the consequences of the policies and adding the political context of it's passage/creation. But it turns out that the Founding of our country was extremely racists and pro-slavery. And while the original document hid that under high sounding rhetoric, the consequences especially of the 3/5 compromise, weighted the political balance towards the South. We elected more Presidents and justices from the South because of this imbalance which in turn strengthen slavery further. (Amar recommended Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power to see this in action.) The Civil War brought this slide to a head, and produced an anti-slavery Reconstruction with several amendments. Amar pointed out that the choice to add amendments to the bottom of the U.S. Constitution instead of rewriting the document, shows the progression of ideas, the layering and widening of freedom. My favorite part of the book was the Postscript, where Amar went chapter by chapter and pointed out where his opinion/writing differed or aligned with constitutional scholars. This would have been an awesome textbook, but it was not a light summer read. However it was necessary, and it did influence my views on the current protests, counter-protests, election and statements from our current President.
Amar points out that the Constitution has an imperfect legacy, but that is a living document that we can still shape. The most important part of the constitution might be the blank space at the end, for us to add more amendments and preserve democracy.
November 15, 2020
This was a reread.
Chapter 1: Amar wades into a number of debates about the Constitution. He argues that: (1) the Constitution was a deeply democratic document for its time, as evidenced by how the delegates for the ratification conventions were open to all men regardless of property, and because it was the first time in history common people were asked to ~create~ a governmental structure on their own terms; (2) the Constitution was unfortunately behind its time on slavery, since many Northern colonies had already completely or mostly abolished slavery; (3) the Constitution was not designed to protect the rich's private property, since there's no real mention of that in the document; (4) while everyone loves Madison's theorizing in Federalist 10 about the protection of minority rights, that theme paled in comparison in terms of importance during the ratification debates compared to geostrategy against foreign invasions and commercial interests.
Chapter 2: About Congress. The Confederation Congress basically never had a quorum, going to show how impotent it was; One of the biggest Anti-Federalist critiques of the House was that it only called for 65 members--too few to avoid bribery, and too few to tilting the playing field to moneyed candidates who could campaign across lots of territory (the reason it was so small was substantially a concern about travel burden for large state rep contingents); the requirement for a dicennial census was actually not standard practice at the time (English Parliament had NEVER done one, leading to gross malapportionment for booming Industrial Rev cities like Manchester/Birmingham).
Chapter 4: Presidency. Idea was to create an especially powerful executive officer that could fill in the gaps during Congressional recesses, etc.
Lots of other interesting views. Big theme is that Constitution was more pro-democratic than people think.
Chapter 1: Amar wades into a number of debates about the Constitution. He argues that: (1) the Constitution was a deeply democratic document for its time, as evidenced by how the delegates for the ratification conventions were open to all men regardless of property, and because it was the first time in history common people were asked to ~create~ a governmental structure on their own terms; (2) the Constitution was unfortunately behind its time on slavery, since many Northern colonies had already completely or mostly abolished slavery; (3) the Constitution was not designed to protect the rich's private property, since there's no real mention of that in the document; (4) while everyone loves Madison's theorizing in Federalist 10 about the protection of minority rights, that theme paled in comparison in terms of importance during the ratification debates compared to geostrategy against foreign invasions and commercial interests.
Chapter 2: About Congress. The Confederation Congress basically never had a quorum, going to show how impotent it was; One of the biggest Anti-Federalist critiques of the House was that it only called for 65 members--too few to avoid bribery, and too few to tilting the playing field to moneyed candidates who could campaign across lots of territory (the reason it was so small was substantially a concern about travel burden for large state rep contingents); the requirement for a dicennial census was actually not standard practice at the time (English Parliament had NEVER done one, leading to gross malapportionment for booming Industrial Rev cities like Manchester/Birmingham).
Chapter 4: Presidency. Idea was to create an especially powerful executive officer that could fill in the gaps during Congressional recesses, etc.
Lots of other interesting views. Big theme is that Constitution was more pro-democratic than people think.
July 16, 2022
I've read several other books by law professor Amar, and this was almost as interesting as the others - I say "almost," just because I've read prior analyses of the Constitution's text in historical context (most recently by McConnell, just a few weeks ago). Also, Amar's leftist perspective showed through, most prominently in his repeated concern about how the text related to slavery (very valid but still noticeable), but also in his emphasis on the direction the Framers were moving in and mentions of how that journey could or should be continued. Still, I'm glad I read this book.
One of the most interesting parts was his analysis of the Reconstruction Amendments. Contrary to Ackerman (whom I've previously read), Amar maintains they were legally ratified with proper procedure despite the Southern states being kept out of Congress. He points out that if we accept secession as real, all Amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the Northern states. Or (as he prefers and exposits at greater length), Congress could legally not receive Southern representatives since the state governments were not republican (per Luther v. Borden, 1849) - but still accept those state governments' actions that weren't biased by their unrepresentative tendencies (whether irrelevant acts such as marriage licenses, per Texas v. White, 1869; or he argues, acts against interest, such as ratifying the Reconstruction Amendments). This's a very interesting argument, and I tentatively accept it.
One of the most interesting parts was his analysis of the Reconstruction Amendments. Contrary to Ackerman (whom I've previously read), Amar maintains they were legally ratified with proper procedure despite the Southern states being kept out of Congress. He points out that if we accept secession as real, all Amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the Northern states. Or (as he prefers and exposits at greater length), Congress could legally not receive Southern representatives since the state governments were not republican (per Luther v. Borden, 1849) - but still accept those state governments' actions that weren't biased by their unrepresentative tendencies (whether irrelevant acts such as marriage licenses, per Texas v. White, 1869; or he argues, acts against interest, such as ratifying the Reconstruction Amendments). This's a very interesting argument, and I tentatively accept it.
November 25, 2020
This is an extraordinarily informative book. The look at the founding document, stressing the enormous (unrealized?) concessions to slavery, as well as the fear of democratic ratification that had the effect of making the document more democratic, are extremely useful and correctives to many narratives of the Founding.
Giving full weight to the amendments is really helps as well, to crystallize the bursts of Constitutional energy the United States has had: Reconstruction, its great promise, and its failure; pro-democracy reforms in the Progressive era; and a smaller burst of pro-democracy reforms in the 1960s.
Considering how sclerotic the Constitutional structure we have now seems - lifetime judicial appointments, a misapportioned and undemocratic Senate, a large and growing divide between the Electoral College and the vote of the people, extremely successful gerrymandering of the House and state legislatures - we would seem ripe for another burst of energy to move the Constitution in a pro-democracy direction once again. Will that happen? This isn't a Whig history - Reconstruction only occurred because the South got insanely greedy with their privileged position - but perhaps it will.
Giving full weight to the amendments is really helps as well, to crystallize the bursts of Constitutional energy the United States has had: Reconstruction, its great promise, and its failure; pro-democracy reforms in the Progressive era; and a smaller burst of pro-democracy reforms in the 1960s.
Considering how sclerotic the Constitutional structure we have now seems - lifetime judicial appointments, a misapportioned and undemocratic Senate, a large and growing divide between the Electoral College and the vote of the people, extremely successful gerrymandering of the House and state legislatures - we would seem ripe for another burst of energy to move the Constitution in a pro-democracy direction once again. Will that happen? This isn't a Whig history - Reconstruction only occurred because the South got insanely greedy with their privileged position - but perhaps it will.
April 13, 2018
I've always been interested in the U.S. Constitution, and this book definitely delivers, often in brilliant detail, the history of that document. Some of the legalese is beyond me, and that's fine, because so much of the book is written with a hefty populist spirit, pointing out that the Constitution is not just a piece of parchment written 200+ years ago by some old dead white men, but an experiment in republican democracy that is both imperfect but strives to be better. Some of the best passages in this book are dedicated to the fixing, the amending, of the Constitution, giving rights to those who have been historically disenfranchised, specifically blacks and women.
I came away from this book with a new hope in what America can achieve, though if it will, is another thing altogether. Perhaps we as a nation have gotten too far away from our basic building blocks, the words and spirit of this document that so many give lip service to but few if any read or truly try to understand.
I came away from this book with a new hope in what America can achieve, though if it will, is another thing altogether. Perhaps we as a nation have gotten too far away from our basic building blocks, the words and spirit of this document that so many give lip service to but few if any read or truly try to understand.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 155 reviews