The Constitution: An Introduction

by Michael Stokes Paulsen, Luke Paulsen

From war powers to health care, freedom of speech to gun ownership, religious liberty to abortion, practically every aspect of American life is shaped by the Constitution. This vital document, along with its history of political and judicial interpretation, governs our individual lives and the life of our nation. Yet most of us know surprisingly little about the Constitution itself, and are woefully unprepared to think for ourselves about recent developments in its long and storied history.

The An Introduction is the definitive modern primer on the US Constitution. Michael Stokes Paulsen, one of the nation's most provocative and accomplished scholars of the Constitution, and his son Luke Paulsen, a gifted young writer and lay scholar, have combined to write a lively introduction to the supreme law of the United States, covering the Constitution's history and meaning in clear, accessible terms.

Beginning with the Constitution's birth in 1787, Paulsen and Paulsen offer a grand tour of its provisions, principles, and interpretation, introducing readers to the characters and controversies that have shaped the Constitution in the 200-plus years since its creation. Along the way, the authors provide correctives to the shallow myths and partial truths that pervade so much popular treatment of the Constitution, from school textbooks to media accounts of today's controversies, and offer powerful insights into the Constitution's true meaning.

A lucid and engaging guide, The An Introduction provides readers with the tools to think critically and independently about constitutional issues—a skill that is ever more essential to the continued flourishing of American democracy.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Law, American History, Political Science, Legal

368 pages, Hardcover

First published April 27, 2015

About the author

Michael Stokes Paulsen is Distinguished University Chair & Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas, where he has taught since 2007. Professor Paulsen is a graduate of Northwestern University, Yale Law School, and Yale Divinity School. He has served as a federal prosecutor, as Attorney-Advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, and as counsel for the Center for Law & Religious Freedom.

He was previously the McKnight Presidential Professor of Law & Public Policy and Associate Dean at the University of Minnesota Law School, where he was on the faculty for sixteen years, from 1991-2007.

Professor Paulsen has taught as a visiting professor at Princeton University, Georgetown University, Bethel University, Uppsala University (Sweden), Daystar University (Kenya), and University of the Andes (Chile). In 2018, he was a fellow in the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, in the Department of Politics at Princeton University.

Professor Paulsen has been a guest lecturer at universities around the nation, including (among others) Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, Penn, NYU, Georgetown, Virginia, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, University of Chicago, Northwestern, Texas, and Minnesota.

He is the author of more than ninety scholarly articles and book chapters on a wide variety of constitutional law topics, which have been published in law journals including the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, the Stanford Law Review, and the University of Chicago Law Review. He is the author or co-author of three books, including The Constitution: An Introduction (Basic Books, 2015) (co-authored with Luke Paulsen) and the casebook The Constitution of the United States, now in its third edition with Foundation Press.

Reviews

[Piker7977 · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Paulsen authors have presented a wonderful perspective on the understanding of the Constitution of the United States that, contrary to the subtitle, often transcends an introductory comprehension. The beginning chapters accomplish a thorough introduction to the Constitution by forming a brief survey history that provides descriptions of the document's articles, powers, and first ten amendments. These proficient sections are handled in an objective manner and are presented in a refreshing fashion that will aid those looking for a modern update to their middle and high school civics courses.

The second section of the book is a fascinating journey through a constitutional history of the United States as told through landmark cases in contrast with their intended/unintended origins, implementations, and outcomes. These chapters are a great way of considering how vital the Constitution has been in the development of the country. Like part one, this section of the book is objective and calls foul when it is historically appropriate. One of the most significant chapters, as noted by the authors, is the writing on the American Civil War. Reminiscent of Boorstin, the conflict is portrayed as a continuation of constitutional framing and the battle for functioning federalism. The authors also give Lincoln credit where credit is due by describing his actions as fulfilling the intentions of the Framers even though it put him at odds with the Supreme Court. This is absolutely fabulous analysis and history.

In my opinion there exists a third, unofficial section of the book which is the tenth chapter concerning the modern Supreme Court (1960-2015) and the book's coda. Here the authors depart from their objective narrative and scrutinize the judicial activism of the late Warren, Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts. Based on the resurrection of substantive due process, many of the late 20th Century cases are framed as a misunderstanding of the Constitution or, in some cases, morally flawed. The bias of the authors is to side with the doctrine of "original intent." While these sections may irk some readers or encourage other to skip these pages, this reviewer found it quite enjoyable. While I often found myself at odds with the authors, I felt their conclusions to be generally predicated on Constitutional literacy and many of their criticisms of the Court's political activism raised good points. This section is a wonderful discussion starter for those who will not get too carried away with the outside political influences that affected these cases and continue to shape the constitutional future of the United States. As a general supporter of stare decisis, I found that the authors pointed out some valid points and shortcomings of this doctrine of jurisprudence. At the same time, I felt that some of the authors' points illustrate stumbling blocks of original intent that fall behind the progressive trajectory of American society and law in the 20th Century. After considering both sides of these arguments, I can't help thinking that either doctrine could be used a political vehicle for partisan gains.*

The coda reminds use that the American people play a vital role in the interpretation of the Constitution which is bigger that any branch of the United States government. I would encourage the authors to publish more studies about landmark cases or perhaps a book strictly about presidential alterations to constitutional interpretation. This is a wonderful study of our governmental framework and a great reference for considering the constitutional history of the United States of America.

*For an excellent discussion about the Framing generation and a quick word about stare decisis, check out this Joseph J Ellis conversation at the National Constitution Center: http://constitutioncenter.org/calenda...

[Morgan Lambresi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Welp, I'm done. This one took a while, but we're here now...

This book is getting 5 stars because it did exactly what I expected it to do. It gave me a mainly unbiased and nuanced introduction to the Constitution. The single outlier to that claim is the 10th and final chapter, which people have already pointed out as "ruining the book" because of some seemingly right-wing opinions in the end. As for me, since this is my review, I think the authors kept an objective tone throughout that chapter and stuck to the point that the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land," not the President, not Congress, and definitely not the Supreme Court. Each branch of government has the individual right to interpret the Constitution, but it doesn't always mean they’re correct. I won't let a couple of minor disagreements ruin the book for me.

Furthermore, the first half of the book goes into a simple yet detailed description of the Constitution; who wrote it, what it says, and what it is intended to mean. The second half of the book goes into the Constitution's application throughout history and modern times. It delves into the pros and cons of our nation's most historic cases, showing (with reference to the first part of the book) the horrid misuse of our Constitution. Although difficult at times, the authors did a good job of giving an objective opinion about its long history because, in the end, the Constitution is to be interpreted, which is a somewhat subjective task. So, considering this difficult task, I think they succeeded.

Something extremely refreshing about this book was the author's ambivalent views about key figures of our nation's history. For example, after reading this book, I've realized that our nation has had some insanely short-sighted, racist, ableist, and malleable Supreme Court Justices and Presidents who have also had some genius and inspirational moments (emphasis on moments). Unfortunately, today's culture is one of quick and unrelenting judgment of people's stupid mistakes. Something I'm not always the biggest fan of. However, I'm glad that these authors were able to give credit where credit was due while still diving into their unforgettable mistakes.

I must also say this is a must-read for every American. This book has taught me a lot of things that I didn't know and has left me plenty to think about. But most importantly, I feel more equipped with knowledge of the nation I live in.

That's all from me,

Onto the next collection of pages...

[Brian Li · Rating 4 out of 5]

I will give 4-5 stars for the first half and 3 stars for the second half. I assume that the first half is the main draw for most readers, giving a detailed but compact history of how and why The Constitution was written in its original form, and how room was made for it to be amended. The second half mainly deals with constitutional interpretation over time, largely by the Supreme court, and is necessarily more controversial as the author basically admits in the introduction that he is going to take a point of view as it's basically impossible to avoid one's personal values on the issues involved. I respect this honesty, but all the same the second half is more subjective and the arguments for and against certain constitutional rulings more complicated to follow.

And for readers of my age, the book is certain to have a number of unfavorable opinions on controversial topics as war and abortion rights.

[Alec Rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic overview of U.S. Constitutional history, and the book I'd recommend that anyone who wanted to learn more about the U.S. Constitution. It covers the creation of the Constitution and its amendments and the way its been interpreted by the Supreme Court, Congress, and the President over the past few centuries. Paulsen makes his own views clear but strives for a neutral tone that avoids turning it into a polemic when it comes to some of the more modern, controversial decisions.

Beyond a mere recitation of history and cases, the book also contains numerous short but engaging biographies of the many important figures in American history who helped shape our constitutional landscape.

Highly recommended.

[William Bies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much more so than with any other country in the world, the American ‘novus ordo seclorum’ approximates to an ideal case of a democratic polity founded by citizens who come together freely to enter into a social compact, rather than an aristocratic order tracing its roots ultimately to the right of conquest. The distinctive feature of our society corresponding to this difference of origin is to be governed by a written constitution, which was ratified in 1788 and came into effect in 1789. Where other peoples – in so far as they live under the rule of law at all – observe implicit, customary and unwritten conventions that determine the conduct of their political institutions, in the United States, the ground rules by which (in theory) all parties are supposed to act are specified expressly in the Constitution.

Thus, if one wishes to understand American politics, it becomes indispensable to study the Constitution itself and the history of its implementation and interpretation. This recensionist, in his mature years, has long wanted to deepen his insight into national affairs through a schooled familiarity with the formal text of the Constitution and has found at last what promises to be a trustworthy exposition of it, written not so long ago by the father-and-son team Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen, entitled simply The Constitution: An Introduction (Basic Books, 2015). The elder member of the pair is, in fact, a constitutional lawyer in his professional life. As related in the preface, the two of them conceived the project for this book as an exercise for the younger Paulsen when he was in high school, but it was to evolve into a major undertaking spanning nine years and the end result turns out to be far more ambitious: for it aims not just to describe the Constitution, but to tell its story, from its inception to the present day.

One must judge the fruit of the Paulsens’ labors a fair success which any American who regards himself a responsible citizen ought to read, if not already knowledgeable about. Early chapters cover the circumstances behind the constitutional revolution of 1787 – how the Articles of Confederation functioned, why the constitutional convention was called, who the major players were etc. In the second chapter, an extensive commentary on the structural cornerstones of the document itself – the separation of powers, federalism etc. In chapter three, the Articles specifying the powers of the three branches, legislative, executive and judicial, are exposed with attention paid to the features the founders built into the document by design, such as the principle of enumerated powers, bicameralism and representation, checks and balances, independence of the president and the judiciary. Here, the commentary does a good job in helping one to appreciate why the framers proceeded as they did, in particular, in connection with the issue of slavery and the enactment and meaning of the Bill of Rights (subject to a close look in chapters four and five, respectively). The authors are clear on the compromises involved, on the one hand (‘There is no getting around it: America’s Constitution, as originally proposed and adopted, was a pro-slavery constitution’ p. 73), and, on the other, on the significance of the freedoms the first ten Amendments were intended to protect.

But, in this reviewer’s opinion, where a reading of this book proves most valuable is in Part II on Living the Constitution. For here one sees how this marvelously crafted political structure plays out in practice when confronted with historical reality. Chapter six is good on the formative years (1790-1860) – what the issues were (scope of federal power, war, peace, balance of power among the branches, alien and sedition acts, the import of precedent-setting Supreme Court decisions such as McCulloch (1819) and Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Louisiana purchase and the nullification crisis of the 1820’s and 1830’s, and lastly the pivotal Dred Scott decision of 1856). What this reviewer has learned from this, above all, is twofold: first, an important point the Paulsens make to the effect that, in the framers’ understanding, constitutional interpretation is, in fact, the legitimate responsibility of all three branches and not delegated solely to the judiciary. Thus, Andrew Jackson’s policies (whether one side with them or not) in asserting executive power do not necessarily figure as a departure from the intended constitutional order. Rather, Jackson is performing what he sees as the executive’s rightful role in defending its constitutional prerogatives. In this light, one has to consider more recent events, such as the declaration of unilateral presidential authority with respect to Congress’ War Powers Act of 1973 under the Bush and Obama administrations (as the authors cover towards the close of the book).

Second, one sees well that Dred Scott cannot be characterized as somehow a regrettable outlier and aberration but, in fact, reflects a thorough and systematic commitment to protect the rights of slave owners that persists up to the time of the Civil War, which forms the subject of chapter seven (Lincoln, the civil war itself and Reconstruction from 1860-1876). Thus, for instance, the authors conclude that the ‘Emancipation Proclamation was perfectly constitutional – and a nearly perfect illustration of Abraham Lincoln’s rigorous and principled, yet pragmatic, approach to constitutional interpretation’ [p. 174]. Yet, in regard to Reconstruction,

It would remain for subsequent generations to uphold the promise of the magnificent now Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments – to extend racial justice and return to principles of faithful interpretation for a newly improved Constitution. The decades following Reconstruction – from the mid-1870’s to the mid-1930’s – did not, however, prove equal to the task, as the Supreme Court once again reasserted itself as an obstacle to the Constitution. The constitutional victories over slavery and discrimination, won in the crisis years of the 1860’s, would not be secured for nearly another 100 years. [p. 184].

Chapter eight tells the story of the Supreme Court’s abandonment of the Constitution during the years 1876-1936. The Paulsens summarize at the outset:

A brief, preliminary litany of the Court’s wrongs tells much of the story. The Court denied equal rights to women; upheld racial segregation; refused to protect the constitutional right to vote without discrimination on the basis of race; denied the full benefits of the Constitution to persons in newly acquired overseas territories; struck down social welfare legislation it disliked on policy grounds; cheered on discrimination against persons with disabilities; and sided with government power to suppress the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. [p. 186]

See the chapter itself for a close analysis of the specific decisions, including among others the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Lochner (1905). But, in what is a remarkable testament to the durability of the federal structure the founders erected, the United States proved able to recover from these wrongs without having to undergo the disarray of a political revolution, as described in chapter nine (the Constitution through Depression, World War and Segregation, 1936-1960). Here again, the Paulsens’ work shows itself commendable in leading the reader through a welter of circumstances pertaining to the landmark Supreme Court decisions on First Amendment rights, the war criminal cases and desegregation (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954).

The final chapter ten is devoted to the ensuing controversy as, under Chief Justice Warren, the Supreme Court became conscious of its newfound power and emboldened to assert itself in what, properly speaking, must be understood as legislative functions in advancing policy goals (the Modern Era of Judicial Activism, 1960-2015). The text becomes notably dense in factual information as one approaches the present – invaluable for the reader who wants to perceive clearly where things stand as of today. Here, one can find everything one needs to know about what the Supreme Court has been up to regarding freedom of speech and freedom of religion, privacy rights as they are construed with respect to contraceptives and abortion, national security and the powers of the commander-in-chief and so forth (through to the date of publication in 2015, needless to say). The authors themselves do not shrink from delivering judicious observations on how developments such as these are to be evaluated from a constitutional perspective, that is, apart from the interested parties’ fait accompli in getting done what they wanted to happen with respect to policy goals.

Thus, what starts out in a theoretical mode in the early chapters with the analysis of the writing of the Constitution and its early implementation winds up being quite practical and current in the later chapters. The two Paulsens deserve accolades for providing contemporary Americans with such a useful commentary on their Constitution itself and on its role in contemporary political life in this country. Reads easily for one untrained in legal matters, nothing too scholarly or technical. Four stars.

[Rob · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book! It does an excellent job of outlining the constitution and the circumstances under which it was created and then tells the story of American history through many of the key constitutional decisions that were made along the way. Dry though that may sound, it reads like a good drama.

[Dody Eid · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an awesome introduction to the Constitution and its history. It's readable, informative, and interesting. Paulsen provides an excellent background for understanding the (un)constitutionality of legislation, executive action, and Supreme Court decisions throughout our nation's history, leading up to the hot-button issues of today. If you have any interest in politics whatsoever, this is worth your time!

[Holly Castleton · Rating 4 out of 5]

i had to read this for my con law class but it was really interesting and informative. on current legal controversies (the last chapter) it makes absolutely no attempt to be unbiased which i didn’t like but the rest of it was good.

[Christine Beverly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disturbed by presidential orders, a second recent president selected by electoral college (not majority vote), and threatened actions by a political party in control of two of the three branches of government, I picked up this text in order to clarify for myself what the Constitution actually delineates and to help me separate my moral compass from what is actually legal. This book did a great job on both counts until the final chapter, and I appreciated the organizational approach: first, defining the elements of the document and their development; second, evaluating the application/interpretation of the document through history. It is a very read-able text, and majority of it flew by as I found myself drawn into the stories of different cases.

And then...I hit the last chapter, which took me a long time to get through. Primarily, this was because the authors abandoned the purpose of trying to just walk me through the history and application of the document, and became increasingly hostile to opposing opinions, many of which are my own. The diction became loaded: Roe v. Wade led to a "holocaust". The imagery became graphic describing partial birth abortion procedures while most other cases in the book were dispassionately and quickly summarized. The logic ventured into non sequitur--did you know that busing students is one of the causes of the "declining public school quality in many cities"? I had no idea that trying to integrate differing populations is the cause of our educational demise and if we just stopped trying to ensure minority kids access to equal education, we'd still be leading the world (read this with sarcasm...it's dripping with sarcasm).

And this is where the book became un-enjoyable to me. Had the authors described these cases with the same dispassion that they did the earlier cases, merely reporting and leaving me to reach my own conclusions, I would have starred this book so much higher. Instead, the book became an attempt to inculcate me into a particular attitude toward these cases, and I don't appreciate manipulation.

It was very useful for me to read this book, though, as I watch Congress wrestle with a Supreme Court nomination of a textualist...as this particular book was also written by a clear textualist. It gave me insight into the candidate before them that I would not have had if I had not read it. And I learned a few fun facts: one of which is that there is no requirement that the Supreme Court actually be 9 justices...we can have more.

Overall, it was a worthy use of my time, but I have another book by the same authors beside me on Landmark Cases, and I'm not sure I'm going to bother. If the final chapter of this particular book is any indication, it will be an exercise in frustration rather than an interesting study.

[Whitney Moore · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book gives a pretty good look into what a mess it really was and that victory did not come neatly or smoothly for them either. It would have helped to have had a copy of the Constitution included in the pages; also a chronological timeline would have facilitated my understanding how the original Articles of Confederation were replaced with the second Constitution that we use now. I have a new and increased level of appreciation for the difficulties and the dissonance that were entailed in formulating this country, and it seems to me a real miracle that we ever coagulated in the first place. How challenging their challenges really were -- and I thank the authors of this book for making that plain. That it was not easy for them to achieve hard things is comforting to realize in July 2016, at such a time as this.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have my issues with this book. It is repetitive at times, and the beginning refers to later chapters so much that it distracts from the text. There are times when the authors state they are providing an unbiased history, but in fact inject their own opinions.

But overall, this 300 page book covers nearly all of the important Supreme Court cases and other Constitutional controversies succinctly, and explains them all extremely well. Some of the authors' positions changed my own views, and it's hard for me to think of many other books that have changed my viewpoints so quickly. I would recommend this book to most Americans who have more than a cursory interest in our Constitution. It has its flaws, but it's still definitely worth the read.

[Craig · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting and very readable review for a lay audience of the basic structure of the Constitution and the varying approaches to interpreting it in the centuries since. It's very opinionated; the authors (Michael and Luke Paulsen, though Michael is clearly the dominant voice) particularly argue against the 'substantive due process' interpretations of the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th amendments, which they trace as an element of the (horrifyingly bad) Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the key element of the 'Lochner era' (1895-1937) rulings that struck down many state laws (e.g. minimum wage laws), and the key element of a number of rulings from the 1960s onward, crucially Roe v. Wade, that protect various rights not mentioned in the Constitution. They also argue strongly in favor of broad use of executive power, including their central argument that the Supreme Court does not have exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution (indeed, they identify Federalist quotes making it clear that this authority was to be shared between the branches). The history they include regarding Lincoln and the Supreme Court here certainly tends to make the reader sympathetic on the last point; if they had included Jackson's response to Worcester v. Georgia (that he ignored the Supreme Court ruling and banished the Cherokee to the Trail of Tears), however, the reader would be less sympathetic on this point. The authors chose not to include footnotes to improve readability, understandable; but the endnotes don't include the (rather most contentious) final chapter. Very interesting and useful narrative, though I would not recommend using it as a sole source to understand constitutional interpretation.

[Caroline Savianeso · Rating 4 out of 5]

For those readers who identify as "novices of American history and law" like me, this is an excellent introductory source on our country's most revered text. I would recommend readers briskly read through The Constitution before beginning this book(and the authors implore the same). In my opinion, there is no dire necessity to fully understand the contents of The Constitution, as the authors break down each amendment in a succinct and colloquial manner. It is and introductory book after all! Get ready to both learn the meaning behind each amendment of the Constitution, but also learn the historical relevance of events where constitutional interpretation shaped the trajectory of our nation's moral identity. You will get an excellent summarization of key American historical events and how they relate to the creation, interpretation, and restoration of The Constitution.
My only issue with the book was in later chapters, where the authors explain notable Supreme Court cases where the Court's interpretations of the Constitution lead to objective moral victories or grave misjustices. At this point, I found it difficult to follow along and truly comprehend the decisions of the Supreme Court and their constitutional interpretations-it was this section of the read that I believe required more than a mere novice understanding of the subject matter.
Overall, this was a fantastic educational read. I recommend this to anyone looking to become more informed in American history, law, and politics. The Constitution and its principles are what bind us together as true Americans!

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

Learning about American history through classes in school, it was often hard to appreciate the genius of the work that is the Constitution and its durability. By condensing its history into a single book, the authors are able to highlight its resiliency but also its uneven interpretations (and flaws) through time.

I can appreciate the book for its perspective and in how it grants deeper understanding for how things have changed (and the value in not accepting current Court temperament as necessarily permanent), but when it starts to tread toward the present (post-1965), that narrative loses some of its power.

From the beginning, the authors are upfront on the fact that they (like any two people) are approaching recent legal cases with their own biases (note: in their Additional Reading section, the authors cite a book they edited for the Federalist Society). Here again, I can respect their perspective, but some of the language choices could have been presented in less emotional terms if they trying to convey a more neutral stance (e.g., the outcome of Roe v Wade as a “holocaust of legalized abortion”). I’m not a legal scholar, but it made me question the interpretation of the remaining text, which was somewhat disheartening as I had enjoyed refreshing my knowledge of American history in the prior chapters.

That said, I find this book to still have been a worthwhile read for its historical perspectives and for challenging my understanding of our rights.

[David Szatkowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a superb book on the history and interpretation of the constitution of the United States. What is also cool is that it is a team father/son work (see the beginning of the book for details). I find that for the most part I'm sympathetic to the legal analysis of the authors, but not always. But their goal is not to define how they see the law, but why the law should be interpreted in a particular way. I think their argument is good, if not always one with which I agree. However, understanding the history of the how the constitution has been ruled on by the Supreme Court is invaluable to anyone to understand our political system. I read this as I read "Hamilton" by Ron Chernow, and the two go well together. As a side note, I think part of our fundamental problem in modern interpretation of the constitution if a failure to understand law qua law. Therefore, I'd encourage our current jurists to re read the Summa Theologiae i-II, q. 90-97.

[Victor N · Rating 4 out of 5]

Near the end I feel the authors are fairly misleading to suggest, without more context, that the late 20th century brought a era of disregard for the constitution. To me this is a misrepresentation. The Dred Scott case and the Roe vs. Wade case are very similar in terms of departure from the Constitution. The difference isn’t in the reliance on the Constitution but in the skill of justification. The Constitution tends to have less to say about modern topics due to the inability of the founders to predict how future technology and understanding would develop. In addition, the heightened awareness of the average citizen meant that the level of detail required by society became more onerous, and contradictions did not pass so easily. It is true that the precise reasoning in Roe vs. Wade relied on sources outside the Constitution, but it by no means disregarded the constitution anymore than the Dred Scott decision did.

Besides this I found the book to be very well written and informative. It is biased, but the authors make no claims not to be.

[Lane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty informative book on the Constitution, which I had admittedly never read before. Pretty cool that the authors (local law professor and his wunderkind teenage son) are from Minnesota. The book details out how the framers wrestled with the original creation, how/why amendments were added, and how the 3 branches of government have interpreted the constitution over time. Most interesting is the take on the common belief that the SCOTUS has ultimate power over constitutional interpretation. Authors detail out how this sentiment has only been shared since the 1950s (when Eisenhower adhered to their decision regarding executive/military domain over private industry...vs times when the Executive (Jackson and Lincoln) claimed all branches have equal authority). Book also makes a pretty strong case for Originalism interpretation vs a "living Constitution".

[Frank · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Paulsons march us through many of the landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court that relate to the constitution, something that is essential to learning about this document. If it's excitement you're looking for however, this s not the place to look. The book reads a lot like a textbook, owing now doubt to professor Paulson's background. And don't confuse this book with an objective analysis of the constitution. By Michael Paulson's own admission, you might not agree with his perspective. That would be acceptable were it not for the fact that that is not the way the book is portrayed. Read this book to learn about important cases decided by the Supreme Court, but make up your own mind about the interpretation.

[Liam · Rating 4 out of 5]

A clear and concise introduction to the Constitution. having read this for a class on the Constitution and Federalism, I found Paulsen's book to cover not only the basics of the Constitution, but also over the historical interpretations that it has undergone, from the foundations and infancy of the Constitution through what Paulsen terms the betrayal of the Constitution during and after the Civil War, to the Restoration from the 1960s to the present.

An interesting and invaluable book.

[Kim Dennis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was definitely more readable than a lot of books I've read on the Constitution. I had to read portions of this for a class I was taking. This book was not so enthralling that I felt the need to read all of the parts, but I've also read quite a bit about the Constitution. If you are wanting a good, readable book to read as an introduction to the Constitution, this book would be a decent place to start.

[Curtis · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent overview of the formation, content, & litigation of the US Constitution, particularly given its brevity. Occasionally gets a bit too opinionated for my taste -- specifically in the later chapters -- but the authors state as much up front. They also seemingly do a good job of providing alternative perspectives, despite it all. Very glad I picked this up.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

It feels weird to rate a book that I was using as a learning tool but hey I read it (took a while). For learning about the history of the constitution and a lot of the staple cases that set important precedents, this was actually pretty engaging. I know the authors tried to be impartial on certain topics, but I felt their ideology slipped through a bit in ways I did and did not agree with.

[Joy Harding · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written by a law professor of mine and his son, this is a wonderful introduction to the document our nation rests on---its foundation, if you will. I strongly encourage everyone who loves this nation to read this book. I know you won't regret it.

[Tyler · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really, really excellent introduction to the Constitution. Well-written. Avoids jargon that only academics in the field can understand. I learned a ton. I would recommend this book to all American citizens and anyone else interested in learning more about the U.S. Constitution.

[Ethan · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's an amazing guide whether you're a long-time student of the Constitution or just beginning.

[Dave Fuxa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty comprehensive and a neat look into the issues and controversies that formed the constitution. Pretty right-leaning and originalist but it stays true to the foundations of the constitution.

[Jack Alexander · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent introduction to our nation's constitutional history.

[Don Cabot]

Excellent at explaining the US Constitution to the average American. After reading, you will see how it's laws have been violated over and over by an increasingly corrupt government.

[Dallin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Up there with The best overviews of the Constitution. The chapters on constitutional interpretative history really sets it apart.

[Michelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating