The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era

by Akhil Reed Amar

A leading legal scholar addresses the most important constitutional controversies of the past two decades and illuminates the Constitution's spirit and ongoing relevance

America's Constitution, Chief Justice John Marshall famously observed in McCulloch v. Maryland, aspires "to endure for ages to come." The daily news has a shorter shelf life, and when the issues of the day involve momentous constitutional questions, present-minded journalists and busy citizens cannot always see the stakes clearly.

In The Constitution Today , Akhil Reed Amar, America's preeminent constitutional scholar, considers the biggest and most bitterly contested debates of the last two decades and provides a passionate handbook for thinking constitutionally about today's headlines. Amar shows how the Constitution's text, history, and structure are a crucial repository of collective wisdom, providing specific rules and grand themes relevant to every organ of the American body politic. Prioritizing sound constitutional reasoning over partisan preferences, he makes the case for diversity-based affirmative action and a right to have a gun in one's home for self-protection, and against spending caps on independent political advertising and bans on same-sex marriage. He explains what's wrong with presidential dynasties, advocates a "nuclear option" to restore majority rule in the Senate, and suggests ways to reform the Supreme Court. And he revisits three dramatic constitutional conflicts -- the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the contested election of George W. Bush, and the fight over Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act -- to show what politicians, judges, and journalists got right as events unfolded and what they missed.

Leading readers through the particular constitutional questions at stake in each episode while outlining his abiding views regarding the Constitution's letter, its spirit, and the direction constitutional law must go, Amar offers an essential guide for anyone seeking to understand America's Constitution and its relevance today.

Genres: Law, Politics, History, Nonfiction, American, American History, The United States Of America

464 pages, Hardcover

Published September 13, 2016

About the author

Akhil 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...

Reviews

[Howard · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars

This is a pastiche of the author’s writings which were earlier published in newspapers, magazines, and journals. Amar knows the subject[s], but lest doubt arises in our minds, he swats it away by telling us – again and again -- that we can rest assured that he is an expert on the subject[s]. There is food for thought here, but the writing is redundant, repetitious, and the writer repeats himself – over and over.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 2 out of 5]

How Amar got to be a constitutional law prof at Yale writing dreck like he does, I don't know. This book is just the latest example, starting from the header.

Only dyed-in-the-wool originalists would talk about "timeless lessons" from the Constitution with a straight face and no nuance.

There are plenty of other howlers just in the introduction. Let's look:

"Between 1804, when the Constitution was amended to downgrade the vice presidency ..." (page 12)

Erm, the 12th Amendment did no such thing. The body of the Constitution clearly, with the amount of powers it specified for each office, showed how the VP was clearly "downgraded." If the words of the Constitution's body aren't clear enough, the comment of our first Veep, John Adams, writing well before the 12th Amendment, should be.

ALL the 12th Amendment did was create separate electoral colleges and electoral voting for the two offices. Period.

Then, on page 15, he buys into the money = speech argument on campaign finance, further showing where his interpretive bread is buttered. Long before Citizens United was wrongly adjudicated, Buckley was also wrongly adjudicated.

On page 17, he supports the National Popular Vote project without telling you that it would not survive a constitutional challenge.

Beyond his constitutional nuttery is this, in a footnote already on page 4:

"Slate makes a point of recording the precise minute that an item is published," as if this were special, even quasi-unique.

Erm, Amar, the semiweekly newspaper I edit does that. He sounds like Poppy Bush gushing in awe over a supermarket scanner.

I had been quite underwhelmed by a previous book of Amar's. I decided to give him another chance. He failed long before I read through the various actual essays in most chapters. (I did read the introductory summaries of several chapters, lest I be accused of not reading at all past the introduction. Besides, even if I had stopped at the introduction, per the above, I'd read more than enough.)

[Laura Hoffman Brauman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was one of my slowest reads of the year -- not because it wasn't interesting or compelling, but because it really made me stop to pause, to reflect, to ponder, and sometimes to look up more information. I picked it up because I have substantial concerns about where we are as a country and felt like I should have an opinion on things that I didn't feel like I knew enough about to justify an opinion. The structure of the book works well. In the first 1/2, he explores constitutional issues with the presidency, vice-presidency, congress, and the judicial system. In the second 1/2, he looks at cultural issues and the application of the constitution, including guns, criminal law, Clinton's impeachment trials, the Bush vs Gore election, and Obamacare. In each section, there is an overview essay about the topic in general and then a collection of essays that Amar wrote for publications at varying points in time. His introductory essay helped to put context in place for the topics being discussed and it was fascinating (if scary at times) to see how these issues played out both at the time the articles were written and in current times. While I didn't always agree with some of the hypothetical options he presented or the interpretation of some elements of the constitution as he stated it, I did appreciate the detail and support he gave to his perspectives. It will probably take me a few more readings of this one to fully get a handle on the concepts he discussed, but I feel much better prepared to consider some of the issues facing our country today in the context of the constitution. If you want to dig deep into some of these issues, then this book is a good resource.

[Shelley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having read and enjoyed The Words That Made Us, I was eager to read more from this knowledgeable and gifted author. Although a portion of what he writes goes right over my head, the parts I understand are explained brilliantly. I have confidence that a second or third listen via the audio book version, or sitting down with the print version would result in a clearer understanding of all the arguments made in the essays. I really appreciate how relatable the author’s choice of language is and his reminders throughout the book that the Constitution is meant to be understood and supported by all citizens of this nation. It was never meant to be a document that held significance only to those in government or in other positions of power and influence.

[Ed Smiley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amar is an interesting fellow. He is both more or less an originalist, and also politically liberal.
(Yes, that is possible!)

Well worth a read by anybody interested in getting interesting ideas and a different viewpoint on constitutional questions.

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

Akhil Amar states a book is supposed to be written for an era, not for a moment. This is an ironic position to take when his book is rehashed essays from previous newspaper and magazine articles. He does have good information to share but you might miss it because he spends so much time battling what appears to be self-esteem issues: reassuring the readers that he is an expert, discussing what he’s right about, and which opinions no one listened too.

The most interesting chapter in the book was the constitutionality of Obamacare though I wonder how much of his arguments are fancy words to mislead people. The original intent for the General Welfare of the Union was not to be broadened to every facet of a citizen’s life, bordering monarchy. Herd immunity is not sufficient justification for the government to Protect Us from our own health, it’s not the same as raising an army to protect from foreign invasion. More importantly, if the American economy and dollar were healthier, no one would care about government protected healthcare.

The second most interesting concept is the origins of the Electoral College and the relationship to slavery. He postulates that slave owners in the 1800's brought this concept into national popularity and the original intent of the Founders was something different. He presents an idea to fix this using a presidential pre-election agreement before each voting year to decide which will take prevalence, electoral college or a direct popular vote. While this is a new and shiny idea, I don’t see much relevance for it. 1) Amar states that the Electoral College has only outweighed the popular vote 3x, hardly significant. 2) the biggest voting travesty of our time is not a battle between the popular vote and electoral college, but the political illiteracy of the voting populace.

[Logan Roberts]

Amar offers a fine collection of essays on contemporary topics in constitutional law & interpretation. Compiled in terms of relatively broad themes, each chapter functions as a thematic umbrella under which more specific issue-based articles are housed. Given this structure, the essays are adequately insightful, but do not always flow well in relation to one another.

Considering that the text does not proceed in linear fashion, reading from cover to cover is not particularly advantageous. I instead encourage reading selectively—engaging those essays which intrigue you and ignoring those that do not. No meaning will be lost in taking this approach.

Amar is a towering scholar who merits adequate consideration. If for nothing else, I encourage reading Amar's essays on the exclusionary rule. Like Dershowitz, I am inclined to disagree with Amar's position, but I nevertheless appreciated the cogency with which he articulated his rationale. It compelled introspection and re-evaluation on my part.

If you find this book in the library, check it out.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Amar has an interesting takes on Constitutional issues as a liberal originalist. However, I thought that on some of the points we disagree on, he was being too simplistic in his thinking—though by no means all of them. This was a thought provoking book even if I mostly plodded through it without much drive to continue.

The biggest problem that the book is a compilation of his essays. Amar introduced each section with a summary of the pieces and then there would often be overlap between the essays. As a result, the same points got repeated over and over again, which was the main reason it was hard to get through the book. I would have found a more unified work—even just the preface/summary from the start of each section—more engaging to read.

[Bradley Mckellip · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whether or not you agree with Amar's take on the issues, his analysis is thought-provoking and thoroughly researched. His occasional attempts at humor come across as an Ivy League scholar giving you a wink and a nudge. Which is not particularly funny, but it's a pretty spot on authorial voice.

[Carolina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Akhil Reed Amar tries to do a lot of things in his most recent book The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era. He acknowledges his ambitious goals in his lengthy introduction where he writes that he is offering three books in one: a book on constitutional substance, a book on constitutional method, and a book on constitutional time. Amar explains that he wants to help readers understand the Constitution by presenting a survey of contemporary constitutional law, a lesson in how to do constitutional law, and a reflection in the tensions between constitutionalism and journalism.

Additionally, he presents several arguments in the book, including the arguments that there are right and wrong answers in American constitutional law, that these right and wrong answers in law can be discovered before history deems them correct or incorrect, and that the Constitution does directly address big-picture issues. He addresses specific parts of the introduction and conclusion specifically to journalists and to a larger audience as well.

If this seems like a lot of arguments in one book, that is because it is. Amar is successful in achieving them but at the cost of the readability of the book. One of Amar’s goals in the book is to discuss the tension between constitutionalism and journalism by surround his original journalistic essays with lengthy introductions that contextualize the essays and provide insight to the passage of time and hindsight. This repetitive material weakens the text. Amar writes a long introduction that summarizes the arguments and materials in each section and chapter of the book, then provides the same information again in more detail in the introduction to each individual chapter. He often writes pages of introduction detailing the arguments he made in the essays to follow before sharing his original essays in each chapter.

Amar’s intentions miss the mark here; he does successfully show the tension between constitutionalism and journalism and the importance of time, but the material is too repetitive to be effective. The book’s arguments would be improved if Amar cut down some of the introductory material as the amount of summary of the arguments is unnecessary, especially when found both in the actual introduction and the beginning of each chapter.

Amar incorrectly assumes that his audience has basic historical and factual knowledge of the topics and events surrounding the case studies he writes about. He emphasizes legal history in both his introductions to chapters as well as in the essays themselves but often dives into the legal history without giving enough historical context for the reader. Now, Amar is probably safe in assuming as he does in the conclusion that many journalists (who he specifies in his audience) will indeed know enough of the historical context because many of them will have lived through the events. But this is not the case for the full range of his audience.

First, younger journalists, precisely the ones who would benefit greatly from a book like this due to their inexperience, may not have lived through all of these events or may have been too young or unaware of them at the time. Any journalist today under the age of 30 would have been fourteen or younger during the Bush v. Gore case and other cases in the early 2000s and would have barely been going to school during the Clinton years. This segment of Amar’s intended audience would benefit greatly from more emphasis of the historical context of the situations Amar is writing about.

Second, Amar’s book is also aimed at students as a primer in constitutional substance and methods, and as with younger journalists, these students will not come into the book with the necessary historical framework needed to understand Amar’s legal arguments.

Third, one of the main points Amar makes about journalists and others reading the book is that they need to do more research and put more effort into learning about constitutional history. He writes, “journalists often have little sense of history.” If Amar recognizes that large portions of his audience lack the necessary historical knowledge to understand the importance and context of the legal arguments he is making, he needs to meet the audience halfway and provide some context before delving into constitutional methods and substance. Amar would do well to consider this segment of his audience and provide at the very least brief summaries of the historical context for events such as the Starr report and the Paula Jones case.

Read the rest of my review here: http://carolinavonkampen.com/2017/08/...

[Otempora]

I usually try to give books a fairer shake before DNF-ing, but at 75 pages in I was already starting to skip around, so I think it's safe to say that The Constitution Today isn't going to do it for me. It seems like there's a lot of valuable insight here, but the problem is the format: most of the book is not original content, but rather a collection of short articles that the author published over a span of ~20 years. He's organized them by branch of government and provided lengthy new introductions, but once you get into the articles themselves it's hard to stay engaged. For one thing, they're repetitive; unsurprisingly for articles written by the same person, on the same topic, but published years apart in different periodicals, similar arguments and phrases crop up again and again. When you're reading these back-to-back, it's frustratingly inefficient. For example, in the first chapter, we get:

"Put simply, Washington became father of his country in part because he was not father of his own children." (pg. 30)

"One key reason that George Washington became father of his country is that he was not father of any offspring." (pg. 34)

"George Washington became father of his country precisely because he was not father to any child who might seek to succeed him." (pg. 35)

It's an interesting point and a well-phrased one ... the first time you read it. By the third time, in the span of five pages, it's aggravating.

Then there are the drawbacks of articles that were written as immediate responses to events that are now in the rear-view mirror. Amar says in the introduction that he hopes including these throwbacks will justify his method by showing that constitutionally-based arguments usually win out over time. But an analysis of the constitutional qualifications of 2008's presidential candidates is just not as riveting when you already know who won. For another thing, because the articles are designed to be bite-sized, to make their point in the space of ten paragraphs, they hurl names and dates and court decisions at you relentlessly; when you read them back-to-back the effect is overwhelming. My brain checked out in protest. And then there's the issue of context. This is something that will vary from reader to reader, but as an adult in my twenties, I can't just fill in the context for electoral debates from 2000 from my own memory. Sure, I voted in that year's election ... in my kindergarten classroom, by circling my preferred candidate's picture in crayon. (I picked Bush because I liked his name better.) I need Amar, as the author, to do some of the legwork here. All of these issues could have been resolved if he took the main thrust of his arguments from these articles, and then reworked them into original content with better pacing and less repetition.

Finally, this book was published in 2016, before the election. Reading it in 2020, that might as well be ancient history in terms of the way the conversation about American politics and constitutionalism has changed in the last four years. That's no fault of the book's, of course, but it makes me hesitant to recommend it now.

[William Troy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although published in 2016, this book is relevant today because we face the same issues with Presidential powers, the role of the Vice President, Congress and the Judiciary. We have culture wars ongoing over race, guns, gays, abortion, and religion. There are problems with criminal procedure and police actions. We have experienced an impeachment and now have an upcoming Presidential election. Professor Amar offers an excellent assessment of how the Constitution should be interpreted regarding all these issues. He is not a strict interpreter or original intent devotee however he thinks that the words of the Constitution have relevant meaning and should be followed to the greatest extent possible. I don't always agree with his approach but I cannot criticize his reasoning. This is an excellent book for those interested in the Constitution and the world today. One point on which I strongly agree with the author is the truly undemocratic nature of the Electoral College. Professor Amar states, "But southerners wouldn't stanf for direct popular election of the president because slave states would get no credit for their human chattel. Thus, the framers settled on a complex electoral college scheme - based on the notorious three-fifths compromise - that effectively guaranteed Virginia the most electoral clout even though the state disenfranchised a large fraction of its population" (Amar, p. 64). It's time to change this discrepancy.

[Tomi · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think it's safe to say I'm not a big fan of these books that compile various articles by the same person. As interesting as many of them may be individually, I just start to find it tedious to hear some of the same ideas again and again, and with no real sense of direction. That being said, as a lawyer, these can be really fun essays because of how engaged Amar is with interesting constitutional history and a creative sense of formalism.

Seeing all of the ideas laid out like this gave me something of a critical eye - there's a point where Amar's dedication to formalism (i.e., the intricacies of how the two Presidential tickets could work together to ensure a popular vote winner) starts to seem absurd, and maybe more crucially, some of his ideas felt politically naive (the extreme benefit of the doubt and reverence he frequently gives to the office of President), or in a serious need of a boost from social scientists or other academics (e.g., his hypothesis that a national DNA database would deter rapes and other crimes). I'm also not sure he really convinced me of anything I didn't already agree with, but overall I found it a pretty entertaining and sometimes very illuminating read.

[Neil · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought I would like audiobooks but it seems that some topics really do not work well delivered in this manner. It is hard to follow the arguments when they are not in print - when the structure of the thinking is not evident on the page. Visual cues that help a reader to organize ideas, and fit them together into some coherent whole, are not provided. The author's fine work arrives on the plate of the mind like so much mashed potatoes. I'm sure this book deserved better than three stars, but that is all I can give it. From now on, serious reading will be on paper.

All that aside, I cannot recommend the book to you and would not go looking for a physical copy of this book. It is a well-chosen and smartly organized set of essays that Amar wrote over the years on various occasions on several topics in constitutional law. At the time of their writing, I am sure that I would have found his words and thoughts worthwhile. They did not make such an impression in this encore presentation. Leftovers, in my estimation.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a really interesting approach for a book - a Constitutional scholar often called upon to write journalistic pieces about the legal considerations at the heart of the issues of the day, Akhil Reed Amar has collected a series of these articles and introduces each set with a reflective and introductory essay. Amar's arguments are consistently thoughtful, and his Constitutional inclinations don't line up neatly with conservative and liberal arguments, which makes him a more interesting read. I don't agree with him on everything, but, for example, his critique of the Supreme Court's use of the 4th amendment was pretty persuasive, even if I was unmoved by his argument about the 2nd. I do wonder if some of his belief in the power of persuasion and his assertion that over time, good Constitutional arguments win out has been shaken in the ten years since this book's publication. I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in the uses and abuses of the Constitution and in thinking through some of the critical Constitutional issues of the early 21st century.

[Amber · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! This is an engaging collection of articles by law professor Amar. This collection of pieces written by Amar over the last 20+ years focused on different events as they relate to the Constitution and our collective history. Because the articles are collected from different venues there could be a bit of overlap, but they really only served to reinforce each other than to be too annoying.

Amar really made me think about such issues as; the electoral college, evidence suppression and the OJ case, the ACA and more. And while I don't know that I agree with everything, I do believe I have stronger, more well informed opinions about our Constitution and the laws, policies and traditions that have sprung from it.

[Ben Duffield · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent survey of constitutional issues of the recent past by an excellent constitutional scholar. With all the essays targeted (generally) towards a layman audience, this was a very accessible yet intellectually rigorous intro to constitutional interpretation. This left me eager to read Amar's other works.
My only critique (and why this book receives 4 stars instead of 5) is that Amar seemed really dedicated to his perspective. Almost always, he states "this position I have always held, and it will always be right -- it will stand the test of time". If you really have thought seriously about your opinion, I would hope you're certain of it, but it lent a cockiness to the writing that detracted from its intellectual aims, in my view. Despite that, I usually left convinced.

[Brad · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked to read this book off the recommendation of a podcast and with the hopes that it would dive into the constitution and how it relates to today. It did some of this, but I felt like it mostly served as a foreground for the author, Amar, to pitch his own ideas, his own constitutional fixes, or (at its most obnoxious) point out where his own ideas have been recognized or taken up by politicians, judges, etc. The book felt much more like a diary on the constitution then it did an informational text. Yes I learned more about the constitution and how it has related to or should relate to modern day issues, but when I finished it I was ultimately slightly disappoint by the journey.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

Amar's book is actually quite good for what it is. The problem is the format: this is a collection of essays written by the author on different Constitutional issues over the past thirty or so years. He's a smart fellow who knows what he's talking about and can make a good case for his point of view.

The problem is, because these essays were written for different publications at different times and he arranged them by topics in different chapters, he actually repeats himself quite a bit. His arguments are good, but he appears to make the same points over and over again, and that made reading this book a bit tedious.

[Sara Laor · Rating 1 out of 5]

Published in 2016, the book reads like comedy in 2023. Everything the Dems do to bend and twist the constitution is good. If the Reps do any of that it is of course, not good. Praises are sung for Hilary Clinton and Meritt Garland. Such upstanding luminaries of the age! Some say we now live in a banana republic complete with a weaponized justice system, political prisoners, muzzled speech and preferential justice for particular favored groups. None of this was apparent when the book was published, but perhaps we should not be surprised, given the giant bubble Mr. Amar seemed to live in? At Yale, no less. The book is a good chuckle.

[Lieren Hansen · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's kind of a shame that this is the only one of Prof. Amar's books on Libby/audiobook because it is one of his lowest rated books. He sounds so arrogant it's hard to listen to and even take him seriously. I had already bought several of his books, but I haven't read them yet, so I was really bummed at the start of this book. I looked him up on YouTube and have watched a handful of interviews and lectures and he's fabulous!! I'm so excited for the rest of his books! Hopefully, it was just this book that wasn't so great.

[Arnav · Rating 4 out of 5]

For those that even have mild interest in constitutional law or just want to feel a bit smarter about how the constitution impacts laws that affect us today, this compilation of Amar’s essays in the mid 1990s through the mid 2010s (with Amar’s own dialogue in retrospect) is an incredible read. I’d be curious to see a version of this for the mid 2010s through the mid 2020s with all that’s happened with Trump, COVID, and AI.

[Heyan Chung · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointing. As a collection of essays, the vast majority of which are more than twenty years old, the book functions as a quasi-modern take on the Constitution but provides no insights regarding truly timely issues or even Constitutional originalism. Amar is undeniably a smart man, but he spends much of the book trying to show you that he’s smart, overinflating his achievements and coming across as arrogant in the process.

[Patrick Abdalla · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not normally a fan of collected columns, but Amar does a great job of putting each column in perspective of when it was written and how it relates to today.
He's probably the most respected constitutional scholar today, so seeing how his arguments developed over time is interesting and enlightening.

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is a collection of essays and op-eds written by Professor Amar. While interesting, it does seem like an easy way to write a book without adding too much new content or thoughts. Professor Amar also does no shy away from hiding his political alliances which can get a bit annoying.

But if you get past all of that you'll learn something new from each section.

[Brian Borchers · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is largely a collection of essays on constitutional law that were originally published in the New York Times, Slate, etc. the essays were written in response to the news stories of the day, but the author takes some time to explain how these issues were resolved.

[Jim Twombly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Took some time to get through, not because of the writing, bur becaude Amar nakes you stop and think about the issues he raises. The points raised have made me think about how I'll present things next time I teach Con Law.

[John Scardamaglia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably should be 4 stars, some of the pieces are unconvincing, but an extra star for showing me I still have the ability to change my mind. Prof. Amar’s argument on doing away with the exclusionary rule is pretty persuasive...

[Noel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Akhil Amar is a thoughtful and methodological scholar in constitutional law. He has some thought provoking, interesting and implementable ideas that are worth considering (how to circumvent the electoral college without a constitutional amendment).

[BLACK CAT · Rating 3 out of 5]

Essays on interesting current constitution-related cases.