What do you think?
Rate this book
The Constitution Cannot Save Us: Why We Can No Longer Rely on Our Founding Document
256 pages, Hardcover
Published July 7, 2026
About the author
Louis Michael Seidman
29 books7 followersLouis Michael Seidman is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University Law Center. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1971, Professor Seidman served as a law clerk for J. Skelly Wright of the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. He then was a staff attorney with the D.C. Public Defender Service until joining the Law Center faculty in 1976. He teaches a variety of courses in the fields of constitutional and criminal law. He is co-author of a constitutional law casebook and the author of many articles concerning criminal justice and constitutional law. His most recent books are Silence and Freedom (Stanford 2007), Our Unsettled Constitution: A New Defense of Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (Yale 2001) and Equal Protection of the Laws (Foundation 2002).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 12, 2026
As more and more state elections determine who will face off in the November 2026 midterms, it seems the media's focus is largely on the infighting between establishment Democrats and the party's progressive wing. Far less attention is being paid to why many believe Republicans should no longer hold power.
I recently read the observation that ‘Republicans have controlled Texas since 1995. They say they want to fix everything that's broken and that is why Texans should vote Republican—but if they've been in power for nearly thirty years, aren't they the ones who broke it?’
At the same time, Republican leaders often claim there is little they can do to restrain Trump, despite holding majorities in Congress. It is difficult for me to understand why some continue to defend what I see as blatant corruption and a disregard for the very Constitution public officials swear to uphold.
Ironically, it is that same Constitution—and the ways it is interpreted—that lies at the heart of this book.
When I spotted this slim volume at my local library, I hoped it would help me better understand the constitutional issues shaping our democratic republic.
The author, a former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and now a Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, writes:
"I used to think that what we needed were justices who were humane and confident in their opinions and willing to do what was necessary to make the country a better place. I've come to think that that was misguided."
Over the course of just 164 pages, he challenges prevailing theories of constitutional interpretation from across the political spectrum.
Rather than placing so much power in the courts, he argues that Americans should reinvigorate electoral politics so that contemporary law and public policy are guided by today's citizens rather than by judicial interpretations of an eighteenth-century document.
His central argument is that our system has become constrained by the belief that the Constitution—with all of its historical assumptions and limitations—can still provide the best answers to modern problems.
He reminds readers that the Constitution was written by a group of white, property-owning men over two centuries ago, men who lived in a vastly different society and who acted illegally by still owning slaves.
With that history in mind, he contends that we should move beyond constitutionalism as the dominant framework and instead confront today's political grievances through democratic engagement and policymaking.
Writing this book during the Trump era, the author proposes limiting the Supreme Court's power to invalidate statutes and, perhaps more importantly, encouraging greater public discourse.
Why?
The author believes that relying on what he considers an outmoded document has encouraged increasingly absolutist positions rather than meaningful compromise, allowing power to become concentrated in the hands of a few instead of reflecting the will of the people.
So, is "We the People" truly possible under our current system?
Are we still capable of mature, tolerant debate?
This book left me wondering whether too many Americans have come to expect the Constitution—or the courts—to solve problems that ultimately require civic engagement and political action.
Whether readers agree with the author's conclusions or not, he presents a provocative argument that democracy depends less on constitutional rescue and more on citizens actively participating in the political process. I found his ideas both challenging and well worth considering.
Reading this book also reinforced my own conclusion that the current Republican Party (as demonstrated by those in elected office) has lost its moral core, abandoned the rule of law, and rejected objective truth.
In my view, repeated failures to uphold basic democratic norms and fulfill constitutional responsibilities have eroded the trust necessary to govern responsibly, conduct meaningful oversight, and faithfully exercise the Senate's constitutional role of advise and consent. Whether others share that assessment or not, it explains why I believe electoral accountability to “We the People” has become so important.
I recently read the observation that ‘Republicans have controlled Texas since 1995. They say they want to fix everything that's broken and that is why Texans should vote Republican—but if they've been in power for nearly thirty years, aren't they the ones who broke it?’
At the same time, Republican leaders often claim there is little they can do to restrain Trump, despite holding majorities in Congress. It is difficult for me to understand why some continue to defend what I see as blatant corruption and a disregard for the very Constitution public officials swear to uphold.
Ironically, it is that same Constitution—and the ways it is interpreted—that lies at the heart of this book.
When I spotted this slim volume at my local library, I hoped it would help me better understand the constitutional issues shaping our democratic republic.
The author, a former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and now a Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, writes:
"I used to think that what we needed were justices who were humane and confident in their opinions and willing to do what was necessary to make the country a better place. I've come to think that that was misguided."
Over the course of just 164 pages, he challenges prevailing theories of constitutional interpretation from across the political spectrum.
Rather than placing so much power in the courts, he argues that Americans should reinvigorate electoral politics so that contemporary law and public policy are guided by today's citizens rather than by judicial interpretations of an eighteenth-century document.
His central argument is that our system has become constrained by the belief that the Constitution—with all of its historical assumptions and limitations—can still provide the best answers to modern problems.
He reminds readers that the Constitution was written by a group of white, property-owning men over two centuries ago, men who lived in a vastly different society and who acted illegally by still owning slaves.
With that history in mind, he contends that we should move beyond constitutionalism as the dominant framework and instead confront today's political grievances through democratic engagement and policymaking.
Writing this book during the Trump era, the author proposes limiting the Supreme Court's power to invalidate statutes and, perhaps more importantly, encouraging greater public discourse.
Why?
The author believes that relying on what he considers an outmoded document has encouraged increasingly absolutist positions rather than meaningful compromise, allowing power to become concentrated in the hands of a few instead of reflecting the will of the people.
So, is "We the People" truly possible under our current system?
Are we still capable of mature, tolerant debate?
This book left me wondering whether too many Americans have come to expect the Constitution—or the courts—to solve problems that ultimately require civic engagement and political action.
Whether readers agree with the author's conclusions or not, he presents a provocative argument that democracy depends less on constitutional rescue and more on citizens actively participating in the political process. I found his ideas both challenging and well worth considering.
Reading this book also reinforced my own conclusion that the current Republican Party (as demonstrated by those in elected office) has lost its moral core, abandoned the rule of law, and rejected objective truth.
In my view, repeated failures to uphold basic democratic norms and fulfill constitutional responsibilities have eroded the trust necessary to govern responsibly, conduct meaningful oversight, and faithfully exercise the Senate's constitutional role of advise and consent. Whether others share that assessment or not, it explains why I believe electoral accountability to “We the People” has become so important.
August 15, 2026
Of course the Constitution cannot save us. Anybody who ever thought it could has a fundamental misunderstanding of it. In the opening chapters, Mr. Seidman dissects the principal theories behind constitutional law - natural law theories, democratic theories and originalism. I agree with him that none of them work, but I felt that his arguments against them were based on setting up and knocking down easy targets. That may be a typical way that lawyers argue to make a point, but he didn't do them justice. These theories do not have to be fully coherent to be useful. We should feel free to pick bits and pieces of them that are appealing and not worry so much about foolish consistency, which, as we all know, is the hobgoblin of small minds. So I'm closer to his final bucket of theories that Mr. Seidman labels as "eclectic". It is the job of judges to judge cases, to be fair, to be generally consistent and to have reasons for what they do. As long as they more or less do those things to the best of their abilities, they are doing their jobs. I'm very pragmatic about all of this. Of course judicial power is top down and undemocratic. It is supposed to be. And some judges are easy, some are hard, some are left, and some are right. Those are features, not bugs. That's why we have three branches of government and separation powers, and that's why my biggest problem with the current Supreme Court has been the damage that it has done to separation of powers by handing nearly unlimited power to the executive branch and by damaging the more democratic branches of government by endorsing gerrymandering and allowing the rich to buy elections with unlimited spending.
Then we get to the end and find that Mr. Seidman's main prescription for dealing with all of this is judicial restraint. I don't disagree. As much as I agreed with most of what the Warren court did. They went too far and got the people on the right so mad that they wanted revenge and now we have the topsy turvy version of the Warren Court that is far more lawless than the Warren Court ever was. I'm OK with dialing it back, and I think that's a better solution than packing the court with liberals or having a new Constitutional Convention. There will always be serious constitutional cases that the Court has to decide. But if they only make big changes when there is no other choice and if they always try to frame their decisions so as to only decide what is necessary and so as to promote the basic design of a limited government of three branches with checks and balances, a lot of the problems will evaporate.
Then we get to the end and find that Mr. Seidman's main prescription for dealing with all of this is judicial restraint. I don't disagree. As much as I agreed with most of what the Warren court did. They went too far and got the people on the right so mad that they wanted revenge and now we have the topsy turvy version of the Warren Court that is far more lawless than the Warren Court ever was. I'm OK with dialing it back, and I think that's a better solution than packing the court with liberals or having a new Constitutional Convention. There will always be serious constitutional cases that the Court has to decide. But if they only make big changes when there is no other choice and if they always try to frame their decisions so as to only decide what is necessary and so as to promote the basic design of a limited government of three branches with checks and balances, a lot of the problems will evaporate.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews