We the People: A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century

by Erwin Chemerinsky

"This work will become the defining text on progressive constitutionalism — a parallel to Thomas Picketty’s contribution but for all who care deeply about constitutional law. Beautifully written and powerfully argued, this is a masterpiece." --Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School, and author of Free Culture

Worried about what a super conservative majority on the Supreme Court means for the future of civil liberties? From gun control to reproductive health, a conservative court will reshape the lives of all Americans for decades to come. The time to develop and defend a progressive vision of the U.S. Constitution that protects the rights of all people is now.

University of California Berkeley Dean and respected legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky expertly exposes how conservatives are using the Constitution to advance their own agenda that favors business over consumers and employees, and government power over individual rights.

But exposure is not enough. Progressives have spent too much of the last forty-five years trying to preserve the legacy of the Warren Court’s most important rulings and reacting to the Republican-dominated Supreme Courts by criticizing their erosion of rights—but have not yet developed a progressive vision for the Constitution itself. Yet, if we just look to the promise of the Preamble—liberty and justice for all—and take seriously its vision, a progressive reading of the Constitution can lead us forward as we continue our fight ensuring democratic rule, effective government, justice, liberty, and equality.

Includes the Complete Constitution and Amendments of the United States of America

Genres: Politics, Law, Nonfiction, History, American History, Audiobook, Government

320 pages, Paperback

First published November 13, 2018

Reviews

[Mehrsa · Rating 5 out of 5]

For the law people, this book barely scratches the surface of a few big issues (guns, abortion rights, race issues), but it's an excellent overview of the current state of the Supreme Court. It's not really a progressive reading of the constitution, but more like a progressive reading of how and why this current court is going to demolish everything we want to happen. It's time to pack the court or introduce term limits.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another excellent and compelling work on constitutional law by Prof. Chemerinsky. Here he argues that progressives need to articulate and foster interpretations and applications of the Constitution which takes greater heed of the Preamble, a neglected component of the text, which nevertheless shows the vision and aspiration of the founders of our republic.

[Gus Hardy · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book, but it takes way too long to get to the “meat”. Spends three chapters on how bad the current court is rather than directly advancing his thesis—“Look to the Preamble”, and find a progressive reading of the Constitution therein. I can see it, but I can also not, too. The author provides good evidence, not rock-solid evidence.

[PaulyReads · Rating 5 out of 5]

The harsh truth is that we are going to have a conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court for at least the next generation. In the face of this grim reality, there is a temptation by progressives to abandon the Constitution and constitutional law altogether. I believe—as does Chemerinsky—that this is a mistake. Instead, we must use this time to develop even more compelling theories of progressive constitutional jurisprudence, so that they can not only transcend partisan divides to secure just outcomes now, but—when the composition of the court does change—provide the intellectual support for a vision of the law that durably ensures equality and justice for all.

Dean Chemerinsky admirably takes up this task. To start, he persuasively disproves the superficially appealing notion that originalism and textualism are “value-neutral” means of judging. All judging is based on values, and the value expressed by strict adherence to original intent and meaning reflects the value of conservatism, or resisting social change. The originalist court especially reveals this implicit conservative bias when the text and intent are unclear, or when it actively overrules its own precedent or Congress to reach its desired result. Chemerinsky therefore insists that the originalist approach to constitutional interpretation is just a smokescreen for judges to reach the conservative decisions they want.

Instead of hiding behind supposedly neutral formalisms, Chemerinsky argues that we must claim the idea that all judging is based on values, and he argues that a proper source of constitutional values can be found in the Preamble. While the Preamble has been historically ignored by constitutional scholars, Chemerinsky identifies five progressive values in its text that can justifiably guide constitutional interpretation—(1) ensuring democratic government, (2) providing effective governance, (3) establishing justice, (4) securing liberty, and (5) achieving equality.

Chemerinsky discusses how each of these values can be used to justifiably interpret constitutional provisions to support progressive views on contested issues such as civil liberties, voting rights, privacy, criminal justice, the Second Amendment, racial discrimination, and religion. In this way, the book also serves as both a primer on the Court’s current interpretation on popular issues, and a prognosis for how the conservative court may rule in the future. Indeed, Chemerinsky correctly predicts the demise of the right to abortion and race-based affirmative action.

Personally, I found this “value-claiming” approach intriguing as it is based on a refreshingly honest and realistic view of the judicial role, and provides a textually plausible way to guide a progressive and modern interpretation of the Constitution. I did not fully buy Chemerinsky's latter argument that there should be a substantive right to shelter, food, and medical care, but that may be due to the short length of the book which prevented a more fulsome analysis. I also agreed with his rebuke of originalism and believe that its claimed neutrality will come under more and more scrutiny as the Court rolls back other freedoms that Americans have enjoyed for generations. His survey of contemporary issues in constitutional law is also helpful as a general overview of the ongoing debates yet to be resolved or relitigated.

The Court, and the American people, need a better methodology than originalism, but progressives have failed to provide one, whether due to intellectual atrophy from the Warren era or a belief that constitutional law should be abandoned. The time is now to correct this mistake and develop a more compelling approach to constitutional interpretation that aligns with progressive values. Chemerinsky begins to fill the gap with this offering. I hope others join him in this project before it is too late.

[JSter · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you're not already a fan of Erwin Chemerinsky, you may join those ranks after reading this book. He is a leading Constitutional Law expert, engaging lecturer, and notable critical thinker of our time. Current Dean of Berkeley Law, Chemerinsky has the ability to condense complicated law into a readable format. His writing (perhaps excepting the Con Law textbook) is for everyone.

The Constitution was written a very long time ago, for a very different society than the one we live in today. Chemerinsky breathes life back into the Preamble, which we've long overlooked, and presents his progressive vision for enhancing the core values within the Constitution. You'll walk away with lots to chew on (particularly around the 2022 SCOTUS opinions, which he predicted with some accuracy) and also a nice synopsis of pivotal Constitutional Law cases over the decades.

I listened on Audible, but wish I had this one in print for later reference. The narrator was engaging, in his own pretentious reading-the-law kinda way, and quite entertaining when it came to expressing snark and disdain over certain SCOTUS rulings.

[Book Shark · Rating 5 out of 5]

We the People: A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century by Erwin Chemerinsky

“We the People” expertly examines the Constitution from a progressive’s perspective and the impact a conservative majority will have on our civil liberties. Dean of University Of California Berkeley School of Law and esteemed legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky exposes the conservatives’ assault on the Constitution and why and how progressives must develop and fight for a progressive vision of constitutional law. This indispensable 304-page book includes eight chapters broken out by Part I. Conservatives and the Constitution, and Part II. A Progressive Reading of the Constitution.

Positives:
1. A well-researched, expertly written book. Professor Chemerinsky commands this topic.
2. The fascinating topic of the Constitution from a progressive’s point of view.
3. This book is anything but dry. The narrative is very engaging and the topics and examples provided are of high interest.
4. Describes the current makeup of the Supreme Court and the impact it will have on specific issues in the now and near future. For example, the impact on unions. “In June 2018, the Supreme Court dealt a severe blow to unions by holding that nonunion members cannot be required to pay the share of the union dues that support the collective bargaining activities of the union.”
5. Effectively describes the goals and purpose of the Constitution. “The Preamble describes the core values that the Constitution seeks to achieve: democratic government, effective governance, justice, and liberty.”
6. Nuggets of wisdom throughout the book. “The Constitution must be adapted to the problems of each generation; we are not living in the world of 1787 and should not pretend that the choices for that time can guide ours today.”
7. Debunks the conservative’s concept of value-neutral judging. “The claim of value-neutral judging is a smokescreen to make Americans think conservatives are basing their decisions on the “true” meaning of the Constitution, when actually their rulings are a product of their own conservative views.”
8. Describes cases from a constitutional perspective. “No constitutional right is absolute, and constitutional cases constantly involve balancing the government’s interest against the claim of a right. To pick an easy example, the Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches and arrests. But what is reasonable or unreasonable cannot be answered from the text of the Constitution or any original understanding.”
9. Describes the values of the Preamble and its importance. “I believe, then, that these five values, four explicitly stated in the Preamble and one that should be seen as implied, should guide interpretion of the Constitution: democratic governance, effective governance, justice, liberty, and equality. In fact, I would go further and argue that virtually every provision in the Constitution can be seen as embodying and implementing one or more of these five values.”
10. Describes the key to democratic governance. “The absence of invocation of religion, or any mention of God in the Constitution, reflects a desire to create a secular government. This should not be surprising because those who drafted the Constitution saw themselves as children of the Enlightenment, where reason had replaced religion as a basis for decisions.”
11. Provides interesting little known insights. “As Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar has repeatedly pointed out, the Electoral College “was originally much more about slavery than about a big-state, small-state balance.””
12. Describes the structure of the Constitution. “The Constitution structures American government around two principles: federalism (allocating power between the federal government and the states) and separation of powers (dividing authority among the three branches of the federal government).” “I then want to advance an alternative vision of federalism that I believe should guide progressives: federalism should be defined to empower government at all levels to deal with society’s serious ills.”
13. The keys to establishing justice. “As has been tragically shown by police killings of unarmed African American men and articulated by the Black Lives Matter movement, criminal justice reform must involve better oversight and control of the police to prevent abuses.”
14. Astonishing facts. “We keep more people behind bars than the top thirty-five European countries combined, and our rate of incarceration dwarfs not only other western allies but also countries like Russia and Iran.”
15. Describes how to secure liberty. “Progressives need to continue to argue, as the four dissenting justices concluded in these two cases, that the Second Amendment means what it says: it is a right to have guns for purposes of military service.”
16. The defense of bodily autonomy. “Progressives must defend constitutional protection for crucial aspects of autonomy, including the right to abortion.”
17. Describes and applies the establishment clause. “Justice Kagan wrote a powerful dissent joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. She stressed that by inviting only Christian clergy and by their delivering explicitly Christian prayers, the government had impermissibly aligned itself with Christianity. That is exactly what the establishment clause forbids.” “
18. Examples of harmful cases. “Hobby Lobby was the first time in American history that the Supreme Court held that people, based on their religious practices, can inflict harm on others.”
19. Describes the harm caused by allowing disparate impact to prove race discrimination. “Requiring proof of discriminatory purpose in order to demonstrate an equal protection violation has dramatically lessened the ability to use the Constitution to create a more just society.”
20. Link to notes provided.

Negatives:
1. No visual supplementary material.
2. No formal bibliography other than the author’s.
3. I would have added a timeline of important cases and their results.

In summary, this is a very useful and important book for progressives. Professor Chemerinsky succeeds in articulating a progressive view of the Constitution and exposes how conservatives have weaponized it to advance their own agenda. He also does a wonderful job of inspiring progressives to act and how to do so. A lot of wisdom in this book, I highly recommend it.

Further recommendations: “The Conservative Assault on the Constitution” and “The Case Against the Supreme Court” by Erwin Chemerinsky, “American Crusade: How the Supreme Court Is Weaponizing Religious Freedom and “The Founding Myth” by Andrew Seidel, “Why the Religious Right Is Wrong about Separation of Church and State” by Robert Boston, “Nonbeliever Nation” by David Niose, , “American Fascists” by Chris Hedges.

[Beth · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, frames his argument for a progressive interpretation of the US Constitution based on the tenets outlined in the simple preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Using examples of cases decided by the Supreme Court throughout our nation's history, with thoughtful commentary on those decisions, and contrasting the progressive interpretation with the conservative "Originalist" interpretation, Chemerinsky lays out a compelling case for his viewpoint and for the Constitutional support of many progressive-led initiatives. I learned a TON from reading this book, and even if you disagree with the arguments, I highly recommend reading it just for a better understanding of Constitutional law.

*Thanks to NetGalley for the ARC, provided by the author and/or the publisher in exchange for an honest review.

[Paul Froehlich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Americans profoundly disagree about how to properly interpret the Constitution (COTUS). Whether the issue is abortion, guns, gerrymandering, or dozens more, there are deep divisions about what the COTUS means.

Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, presents a coherent alternative to the originalist method that has come to dominate the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Though there are variations among originalists, their basic method is to use what the words in the text originally meant and were understood as at the time of ratification.

This method usually leads to a conservative outcome, which coincides with the policy preferences of conservative justices. Originalists, however, deny they are imposing their political viewpoint. “Judges are like umpires,” said Justice John Roberts. “Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them.” Value-neutral judging is “nonsense,” asserts Chemerinsky. The views of the justices inevitably color their decisions. Judges make law in certain cases, whether they admit it or not.

Chief Justice John Marshall rejected originalism in more than one landmark case. In "McCulloch v. Maryland," Marshall wrote that “we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding,” a constitution “meant to be adapted and endure for ages to come.” Other famous cases that were unbound by the original understanding were "Brown v. the Board of Education" and "Obergefell v. Hodges," that legalized same-sex marriage.

In that last case, Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. He explained how the COTUS must be regarded as a living document, not one that is “dead, dead, dead,” as Justice Scalia used to call it. “History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries,” wrote Kennedy. “That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past to rule the present.”

The conservative embrace of originalism originated in opposition to Roe v. Wade, suggests Chemerinsky, since abortion was neither mentioned nor implied when the COTUS and its amendments were ratified. The most prominent originalist was Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that discrimination against women never violates the equal protection clause because the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended to protect women’s rights. Original intent rules.

The current direction of the SCOTUS is unfortunate, Chemerinsky argues. This is the most pro-business court since the 1930s. This court also has been steadily eroding the separation between church and state as well as legal limits on campaign contributions. Chemerinsky predicted the overturning of Roe and of affirmative action, both of which happened after he wrote this book.

“Progressives must fight back,” he writes, “by offering an alternative vision of constitutional interpretation…based on fulfilling the Constitution’s promise of liberty and justice for all.” His vision stems from the Constitution’s goals stated in the Preamble: ensuring democratic rule (by we, the people), effective government, justice, liberty, and (from the Fourteenth Amendment) equality.

The Preamble has been ignored compared to other parts of the COTUS that are commonly invoked. That’s unfortunate, he contends, because the Preamble defines the basic ideals through which the document should be viewed. In other words, “the values stated in the Preamble provide guidance in understanding the meaning of the Constitution and how they should help in deciding today’s most important and controversial issues.”

The first words – “We the people” – indicates the people are sovereign and there is democratic rule, not an autocracy or monarchy. Lincoln expanded on the phrase in his most famous speech: “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Among the current practices undermining government by the people are gerrymandering, which is more sophisticated than ever, and the Electoral College, under which the popular vote loser is more and more likely to win the presidency. This outcome could be greatly reduced if states were prohibited from adopting winner-take-all laws for their electoral votes.

The second goal in the Preamble is to create an effective government, (unlike the government under the Articles of Confederation), that will “form a more perfect union, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare.” Effective government includes prudent regulations that promote the general welfare.

Finally, the Preamble envisions a government that will “establish justice” and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” The lack of justice helped to cause the American Revolution, so having justice was a priority. So was individual freedom from tyranny.
Equality is one key value that was missing until 1868. It was inserted in the COTUS by the Fourteenth Amendment with the clause guaranteeing “equal protection of the laws.”

These five major values, Chemerinsky asserts, are embodied and implemented in the rest of the COTUS. These “central values should guide constitutional interpretation.” Chemerinsky devotes several chapters to demonstrate how these values could and should be applied to various problems. One of which is injustice in the criminal justice system.

It is incredible that under a 1983 SCOTUS decision, a police officer who commits perjury and sends an innocent person to prison is immune from civil damages. Prosecutors also enjoy immunity from money damages even when they knowingly use perjured testimony at trial to convict an innocent person. Funding for indigent defense services is shamefully inadequate, concludes the ABA, and that leads to innocent defendants being convicted and even sentenced to death.

“We the People” provides a clear and attractive alternative to purported value-neutral judging using originalism. Justices aren’t merely calling balls and strikes. -30-

[Allison Foster · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this book was very interesting and an easy read considering its heavy constitutional law content— it was written right after Gorsuch’s nomination and has a fairly bleak perspective on progressive SCOTUS decisions. Little did he know that we’d have 2 more conservative appointees in the next four years. With the (somewhat surprising) SCOTUS decisions that have come out of the last few years’ worth of sessions, this book sometimes feels quite outdated, but it is very educational and a great foundation for understanding how the Constitution can be used to advance a progressive agenda.

[Michael]

I did not actually want to read this entire book, and I didn't. I only wanted to read the chapter on federalism. Here is why: in the past few months (maybe a year or two at most), we have heard loud calls from political progressives to do the following things:

1. End the electoral college
2. Get rid of the Senate
3. Enlarge the size of the Supreme Court
4. Allow sixteen year olds to vote
5. End the practice of judicial review (i.e. invalidate Madison vs. Marbury)

Some of these ideas have been around for a long time, but in the current fevered response to Donald Trump, more and more people are thinking along these lines in our political chattering class. (But let's be honest: the average American has absolutely no idea what most of this means).

This author is a progressive law professor or something, and has written a book outlining what a Progressive interpretation of the Constitution would look like. In brief: no limits to federal power. The federal government could do whatever was deemed necessary to further the goal of whoever happened to be running the government (progressives, in this man's imaginings). States would be able to deal with issues so long as the solution to said issue was progressive (more taxes, more programs, more equality in both opportunity and result). So rather than have the Constitutional separation of powers where the states take care of whatever the Constitution doesn't, by relying on the vague working of the Preamble ('promote the general welfare'), the federal government would become the central political force in America.

I disagree. I am a classical federalist in that I think that power should rest closest to the people who are affected by that power, and that the power of Washington should be--for the most part--limited. Here is why: we are not one nation. We are regions, and those regions have very different cultures. What's just darn fine in Texas would be unimaginable in Massachusetts. What's great in New York is an anathema to Kentucky. So be it, and good luck to all! I don't want to live in West Virginia, but I trust that the people there--adults who have political agency--can make decisions about how they would like their lives to be ordered. Are people being allowed to vote? Are civil rights be respected? Is there some kind of interstate commerce taking place that I need to be concerned about? Other than that, knock yourselves out! Live your best life. Show us how it's done. And, hey! Let's all have a bbq for the Fourth of July. That would be awesome.

I read a startling statistic a few years ago: 80% of all the people in this country live within 50 miles of their mothers. That means that for the vast majority of us, we tend to stay where we started out in life. So if the good people of Tennessee want to allow guns in kindergarten classrooms, abolish seat belts, and pray to the sweet baby Jesus at high school football games, it has zero impact on my life and makes them happy. Why should I care? Likewise, in the mighty Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we are talking about letting people opt of of gender identification on licenses and birth certificates (which is...different) and acting all put-out when a federal judge is held accountable for helping a criminal avoid the law. Great! (also, I am moving to New Hampshire as soon as my youngest daughter graduates from high school). Point being: do what you want, where you are. You don't need my approval, I don't need yours, and Washington is a fucking snake-pit full of oligarchs, so stay out of my life.

See you at the bbq!

[Hlsmlane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chemerinsky begins by detailing recent actions of the conservative court and exploring the question of whether judicial review ought to be abolished.  He then spends an entire chapter on conservative's claims of value-free judgments,often referred to by the late Justice Scalia as “originalism.” By way of numerous examples, he shows these claims to be false and a little ridiculous.  As self-evident as this may be to most of us, itis an important foundation for the arguing specific values that should guide judicial thinking.
Which is a segue into the next chapter,which is the heart of Chemerinsky's thesis that the values of the preamble are emphatically not mere introductory fluff, but bedrock principles which ought to guide understanding of the rest of the document.  And indeed, the principle was understood and accepted in the early history of our nation,however imperfectly implemented.  I found it striking and disturbing that since the beginning of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court has implicitly and sometimes explicitly ruled that the preamble has no substantive power with regard to the body of the Constitution.
Most of the remainder of the book is devoted to examining how conservative decisions have often worked against the principles of the preamble, and how the application of progressive values would have differed.  I note in passing one remarkable assertion that an article of the Constitution might beused to invalidate another; specifically that the Electoral College could be ruled unconstitutional.  While this might be academically feasible, I can't see it ever being a practical solution to the problem.
I strongly agree with Chemerinsky's conclusion.  He points out that the Constitution of the USSR is quite precise in spelling out the rights of the populace, few of which were actually available under Stalin.  The point being that people in power might well be willing to abuse and ignore the provisions of the Constitution (Trump, anyone?), and in the absence of others able and willing to give force to those provisions (AKA the Republican Congress), the document is dead.  And we, the people,are the ones responsible for assuring those we put in positions of power are the latter rather than the former.

[EMMANUEL · Rating 1 out of 5]

I really didn't like this book. I don't know if this author was in the pursuit of defacing the Preamble and the significance of the Preamble. With that said and known, his complete rationale was entirely the opposite of the Preamble's pursuit "form a more perfect union, establish justice..."

I was very baffled in a disgust persecutive of how, dare I say it... "STUPID" someone can be with the interpretation of such basic oath and standards of philosophy. The USA's Preamble is very simple to understand and grasp in relative application. The application doesn't require such "fancy" jargon or examples, which this book failed to even provide. Which I'm not surprised. He has very ill qualities and credentials in his resume. Right. "We the People..." - Spiritually. That's what the Preamble is.

Also, being politically controversial is ideal, but being illegal with the controversy... is punishable by death. Especially at the level of the Preamble. The Preamble is even a difficult USA doctrine to deface. I am greatly astounded with such accomplishment, which isn't a good thing, for managing to fulfill such "credential".

This book can be used against the author at the highest level of capital punishment, and there is no way to deny the absolute verdict, which would be guilty. This book is the epitome of Constitutional Terrorism, and most importantly - a defacement of International and Comparative Law, which I am very coherent and literate on.

I would say "God Bless," but I don't believe you believe in God. And... quite honestly, I feel and believe strongly you would be offended if I said, "God Bless" to you. I don't even believe that you consider the devil to exist. I honestly don't even know where you are at in societies communities and who you are. If you aren't even able to be perceived to believe in either the devil or God... right, then you're considered the cancer zodiac. Not in the good form, if the cancer can even be good. If you think the cancer can be good, then you need to be addressed.

There, you have the insight of this author. I am now officially afraid for my life. Someone get this person because he has my life, and I was forced to read his book once I started.

[Robert Stevens · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book succeeds in making many excellent points such as finding and fighting for a progress approach to the reading of the Constitution. To many in the judiciary system, the Preamble has been reduced to being an empty rhetorical flourish and has thus been ignored in our jurisprudence, which needs to be changed. The author successfully counters views favoring originalism and states that it is impossibe for all judges and justices to avoid making values choices. Thus, conservative judges and justices are hiding behind the idea of originalism on certain issues and states rights.

Next, redefining federalism to be about empowering all levels of government would go far in pushing a progressive interpretation of the Constitution.

I agree wholeheartedly the section about the need to improve what we do for criminal defendants as it is not fair or justice that money talks. People have a RIGHT to compensent counsel and the death penalty’s abolition would go along way to help justice

I also agree and advocate for maintaining the separation of church and state as religion can’t be used to infringe on the rights of others or be used to justify discrimination. Also, if separation of church and state didn’t exist, how could we justify citizens funding the religions of others. In a society without a firm separation of church and state, many would feel that it isn’t their government, if not secular.

Many things needing to be done can be found in the Preamble such as providing for the general welfare. This is also a great reminder to keep arguing for progressive causes to plant seeds and fight and fight harder for the future we want.

[Madie Burneson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book starts by explaing how conservative justices generally make their decisions while claiming it follows the logic of “originalism”; and that whether or not they are truthfully following that the progressive movement needs to create its own logic regarding the consitutiom so when the chance to regain power in the Supreme Court arises the decisions made with will follow this logic. Then breaks down how the promises of the constitution should be interpreted under this progressive view.

It was a good read and generally easy to understand; and I was very excited to read the bits that went over cases I was already familiar with or wanted to learn a bit more about. I will say a decent chunk of this book was just an exercise in pissing myself off by going over all the things that have been more or less stripped away or lost before they could really do anything. I have many issues with the Supreme Court just in a structural sense that this book only lightly touched upon. But also the ideas are not going to be implemented any time soon which the author is aware of but is a depressing aspect all the same.

[Warren Chu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Professor Chemerinsky is, in my opinion, the greatest legal academic alive. He is clear and concise in his writing without sacrificing any complexity and “We the People” is no exception. Impeccably written with an interesting premise (that our reading of the Constitution should be guided by the Preamble), it’s a quick and easy read that manages to avoid the pitfalls of other legal writing. That being said, I don’t think it will convince anyone that doesn’t already agree with him and it doesn’t contain much for those already familiar with the legal system and the Constitution. Nevertheless, it’s still a great read for those who want to know more and share Professor Chemerinsky’s views. Ultimately, I think my takeaway here, as it is after I read any con law cases, is that the Court is deeply inconsistent without acknowledging this inconsistency to the detriment of us all, but especially those most commonly overlooked by our judicial system.

[Meg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book - beginning with the concept. Chemerinsky is right in stating that conservatives tend to have a very clear and consistent interpretation of the US Constitution in a way that liberals are lacking. Coming from a background that very much upholds that conservative view, I was intrigued by this idea. While I don’t agree with Chemerinsky’s proposed interpretation in all of its details, the majority of his progressive thinking summed up my own views well - views that continue to be shaped and developed by my lived experience. This little tome was very accessible, provided lots of direction and sources for further inquiry when needed, and presented issues with conservative interpretations clearly. Regardless of your own political stance, this is a helpful read if you’d like to understand some of the goals of the “liberal left” better, particularly in an arena where conservatives have done a much better job at clearly presenting their views!

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not finishing not because it's bad, but because I think I have the gist and now that I'm free of grad school there is SO MUCH FICTION I want to read!

But I've been thinking about this idea a lot lately, that the Constitution ought to be interpreted through the lens of the preamble. Simple but effective. But I just can't take reading all Chermerinsky's depressing examples of where the Supreme Court has failed us...especially as things are just getting worse by the day.

So yeah, I'm on board with you, Chermerinsky, and I think everyone in the Justice Department should read this.

On another note, the quality of the cover is really weird. It feels like it's the consistency of poster board, without any kind of lamination or anything. My copy is way more gross-looking and bent than it should be.

[Holt · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book makes an excellent case for being the cornerstone of constitutional resistance against radical conservatism in the United States legal system. Though I don’t agree with all of his analysis or results, it is the basis for a progressive counter to the federalist society movement born during the warren court. In the face of radical regression of human rights in the United States, progressives ought to rally around the values Chemerinsky highlights: equal protection, liberty, justice, and the general welfare. The universe’s moral arc is currently wavering, we must bend it back toward justice.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Progressive view of the Constitution for the 21st century. The author centers his analysis in the values he sees implied in the Preamble to the Constitution: Democratic government, Effective governance, Establishing justice, Securing liberty, and one additional value which he sees as evolving through our history -- Equality.

Professor Chemerinsky begins with a brief analysis of "Originalism" which he reveals to be a form of sophistry.

Some of the positions he advocates seem a stretch but the need to advocate a Progressive agenda is convincing.

[glassglow · Rating 4 out of 5]

- Goes in depth on the problems with the originalist reading of the constitution.
- Lays out a framework for a progressive reading of the constitution based on the principles both explicit and inherent to the constitution.
- Provides ample evidence from a numerous amount of case studies of modern conservative judges violating their "originalist" reading of the constitution in order to push their political agendas and sensibilities on the American people.

[Gwen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very readable, highly informative book about our constitution and how the conservatives are using the language in the constitution to reverse progressive movement made in the 20th century. Highly recommended reading for all progressives. We have a lot of work and a hard fight to make sure our constitution stands for the rights of ALL people.

[Anita · Rating 4 out of 5]

It seems to me that many judges who use the term "originalist" do so with an air of superiority. The idea that they aren't imposing any personal opinion on their judgements seems to be ludicrous. This book explores an interpretation of the constitution which considers a more progressive way of interpreting the constitution

[John Kaufmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book, though a bit legalistic (based on the nature of the subject). He argues that the Preamble should serve as the primary source of guidance for applying constitutional principles to current conditions -- conditions which were never anticipated, much less addressed, but the Founding Fathers, and which render "original intent" of conservatives as deeply flawed.

[Lyndon Moors · Rating 4 out of 5]

Law students will know of Chemerinsky as one of today’s most influential legal educators. His clarity and comprehensiveness is expressed through his teaching, his writing, his editing, and his public appearances. Here he makes the timely case for a progressive interpretation of the Constitution, substantially based on the often ignored text of the Preamble. His makes his case.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good, accessible intro to a new theory of the US Constitution based on progressive values. The most important contributions are the unmasking the sophism of originalist arguments and creating a five part criteria for judging constitutionality.

[Don Scalise · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book makes the case for a more liberal interpretation of the Constitution and a more empowered national government. Even though I don’t necessarily agree with many of the assessments in the book, it’s good to read such a different perspective.

[Cathy · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author is prescient in predicting the fall of Roe v Wade and the affirmative action. The writing tastes like your all fiber low carb gluten free zero seasoning meal. The content is more about the conservative reading of the constitution and why everything is wrecked.

[Leslie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding! A must read for today's political environment. Well referenced, with relevant examples to explain points of view. Every elected, public servant should read this, or in some cases, have it read to them.

[Kate Calvano · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit dry at points but very informative and well-sourced.

[Edward Weiner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brilliant review of Supreme Court decisions in the area of civil liberties and a screed in support of progressive policies. I loved it.