U.S. Constitution For Dummies

by Michael Arnheim

Your complete guide to understanding the U.S. Constitution.

Want to make sense of the U.S. Constitution? This new edition walks you through this revered document, explaining how the articles and amendments came to be and how they have guided legislators, judges, and presidents—and sparked ongoing debates along the way. You’ll get the lowdown on all the big issues—from separation of church and state to impeachment to civil rights—that continue to affect Americans' daily lives. Plus, you’ll find out about U.S. Constitution concepts and their origins, the different approaches to interpretation, and how the document has changed over the past 200+ years.

Inside, you’ll find fresh examples of Supreme Court Rulings such as same sex marriage and Healthcare Acts such as Obamacare. Explore hot topics like what it takes to be elected Commander in Chief, the functions of the House and Senate, how Supreme Court justices are appointed, and so much more.

Trace the evolution of the Constitution Recognize the power of the U.S. Supreme Court Get details on recent Supreme Court decisions Find new examples of the Bill of Rights

Constitutional issues are dominating the news—and now you can join the discussion with the help of U.S. Constitution For Dummies. 

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Reference, Law

418 pages, Kindle Edition

Published May 15, 2018

Reviews

[Nandakishore Mridula]

I was about read this book when I found out that it has been gushingly endorsed by none other than Ted Cruz.

Uh-oh.

Mr. Cruz writes in his foreword:

For good or for ill, the meaning of the Constitution has often been very much in the hands of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. This book goes in depth into the different approaches adopted by different justices over the years. Dr. Arnheim explains his own interpretations in simple, direct language, and he also explains why he favors the approach that he adopts — while at the same time setting out the opposing views.

For example, Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall both believed that the death penalty always constituted “cruel and unusual punishment.” Dr. Arnheim explains why he believes they were wrong — based on the text of the Constitution itself. But Dr. Arnheim goes further, arguing that Justices Brennan and Marshall were really confusing what the Constitution actually says with what they as judges thought it ought to have said. There are serious policy arguments both for and against capital punishment — but given that the constitutional text twice explicitly authorizes capital punishment, the only proper way to change that would be a constitutional amendment as laid down in Article V of the Constitution. And an amendment is unlikely to be passed, because large majorities of the American people have consistently supported capital punishment for the very worst criminals. Accordingly, a judge imposing his or her views on the issue is not only unconstitutional, it is also undemocratic.

My God. Not killing people is undemocratic? Then what about many democracies which have banned capital punishment?

Again...

Likewise, in 2008, the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, holding for the fi rst time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms (discussed in depth in Chapter 15). Texas led 31 states in defense of the Second Amendment in that case, and our arguments for giving force to the plain text of the Constitution and the original understanding of the Framers prevailed by a vote of 5 to 4.

Yuck.

Cruz also says:

The Constitution is designed to limit government and to protect all the freedoms that you and I cherish as Americans.

I stopped reading, then and there. This book goes from my "to-read" to "never-ever" shelf immediately.

Can somebody please recommend a non-biased book on American Constitution, please?

24/01/2017

I have recommended this book to the new President of America, as he seems to be part of the target audience.

[Leif Krarup · Rating 4 out of 5]

En letlæst indføring i den amerikanske forfatning. Lidt vel detaljeret til tider.

[Vicki Tillman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not your typical Dummies series explainer-type book. Instead, it is a collection of essays with the slightly right-leaning opinions of a crotchety, old British barrister. I listened to the audio. It kept things interesting, anyway.

[JS · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good. Surprisingly thorough for a book for dummies like me. And honestly one of the better, more naturally flowing books about the constitution that I’ve read

[Karl Swanson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book with lots of information and relevant examples that explain why the USA is currently where it's at, politically.

Lots of reviews criticize the author rather than his work, but I would bet a large portion of my own personal wealth that those reviewers are left or right wing extremists or at the very least, fringe on the border of political extremism. Arnheim appears to take a Libertarian perspective in his writing, and is very much an originalist in constitutional interpretation. His personal views are clearly labelled by the "in my opinion" sections of the book, and can easily be ignored by those who only want to feed the machine of their own bias.

This is a solid book that every American should read; Arnheim navigates the complex issues that dictate modern American politics and presents them with language that can be understood by almost anyone with a decent comprehension of the English language.

Please don't allow hateful reviewers to get in the way of reading this book. They are, and likely always will be biased by their own political views. This prevents them from attaining a full education and open mind toward other beliefs.

[Zamal Franks · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author seems to have focused more on the Supreme Court when talking about the US Constitution. But that could be because the US Supreme Court, through its interpretations of laws, has dome more to change the Constitution without using the methods laid out in said document.

For instance, there's a section that lays out who the author thinks is the 10 Most Influential Supreme Court Justices. Obviously, this would be difficult for members of the House of Representatives and Senate because there are so many, but perhaps it could have been done for presidents.

There just seemed to be a larger focus on the Article 3 portion and its influences on the Constitution that the mostly ignored Articles 1 & 2.

[Bethany · Rating 1 out of 5]

The back cover states "unbiased", however the entire book is riddled with Arnheim's personal opinions, views, and prejudices. Average citizens view the "for dummies" series as a source of easy to understand education. The misrepresentation of this book as unbiased is irresponsible at best and wholesale fraud with the intent to push political agenda on the unsuspecting consumer and/or impressionable student. Shame on the editor and publisher both.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

The South African-born German-English barrister Michael Arnheim published the American version of the U.S. Constitution for Dummies in 2018. I read the second edition. Arnheim is a character in his book. To illustrate when Arnheim is talking about his point of view the editors include a section called “controversy” and “in my opinion” (Arnheim 2-3). The book is interested in politics in the United States in 2018. The first edition has an editorial introduction from Senator Ted Cruz of Texas which the second edition does not have (Lepore 2011). The second edition contains a discussion of whether Cruz meets the requirements to run for President according to the United States Constitution, so I do not know if Cruz and Arnheim are personally friendly (Arnheim 120-121). Many Goodreads reviewers and the Historian Jill Lepore view Arnheim’s politics as lining up with Ted Cruz’s politics in the American context (Arnheim 360). Arnheim seems to admire the late Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia. I think a person can read the U.S. Constitution for Dummies without agreeing with the politics of Arnheim, I did. That being said, a person has to be aware of Arnheim’s politics to read this book. This book did seem to be very situated in politics in the United States in 2018. I found the second edition of the U.S. Constitution for Dummies to be an interesting book.
Works Cited:
Lepore, Jill. “The Commandants.” The New Yorker. 2011, January 11. The Commandments | The New Yorker

[Bryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent review (or primer for beginners). I took my time with this one. and I'm pleasantly surprised to have gone over this material after not thinking about it so deeply for so many years. There's definitely a lot of value in making sure you're being a responsible citizen by keeping up with your civics. If you don't think about it for a while, you'll likely forget it. This is an excellent book to help solve that problem.

[George Noland II · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice summary (2023)

[Daniel Laufer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent first book for a deeper understanding of the Constitution.

[AttackGirl · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terrible and this is not for beginners or anyone who doesn’t already know the constitution and discussions around it.

[Ratheesh · Rating 1 out of 5]

Boring

[Vurtqxyrfhujuy · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is an awful book for anything but fanboys of Scalia. The author repeatedly displays blatant bias, including insults for people he disagrees with, even outside of sections that are marked as opinion. I could have continued reading it just to challenge my own biases, but finally concluded it wasn't worth it when he decided to show how smart he is by denigrating the "government of the people, by the people, for the people" line in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Here are his arguments (Part II, Chapter 6, pg 71):

So, how does an indirect democracy stand up to Lincoln's three-part test?

* Government of the people: This is the easy one. Any government is automatically a government of the people. It doesn't have to be a democratic form of government. A monarchy, a dictatorship, an oligarchy - all are governments of the people, but they aren't governments by the people.
* Government by the people: This is the elusive one. Government by the people has never existed in the United States - and could never exist. So what was Abe Lincoln thinking of? Or did he just figure that it had a nice ring to it as part of a threesome?
* Government for the people: Every government of every kind everywhere in the world always maintains that it governs in the interest of its people - or for the people. This is not a specifically democratic feature at all.

In fairness to Abe, he probably figured that the sort of indirect, representative democracy that we have in the United States was actually government by the people - a pretty dangerous assumption to make by a guy who got into the White House with just 39.8 percent of the popular vote.

This is a sad and petty argument against one of the greatest speeches of one of the greatest presidents in our nations history. First, not every government is of the people. This line invokes the doctrine of popular sovereignty, a founding principle in American politics and culture, and is in no way universally held by all governments, either then or now.

Second, government by the people is simply a call for democracy. The argument that indirect or representative democracy somehow precludes the government being directed by the people can only be supported by the belief that only direct democracy could legitimately hold claim to this. His argument devolves into nothing more than a difference of opinion, a dispute in which the author is the one holding the unusually narrow and contrarian definition of what democracy entails.

And finally, Lincoln was not advocating that government claim to govern in the interest of the people (which is common, as the author notes), but that it actually governs in the interests of the people (something much more rare), that its ultimate purpose is to serve all people, and not simply the political elite. And while this is not a specifically democratic feature, it is certainly a desirable attribute in any government, and an ideal in American politics.

Arnheim's attempt at scoring intellectual and iconoclastic points with such flimsy arguments was the final straw that forced me to put down the book. It was tolerable, if annoying, to have an introduction to a topic be so blatant in its biased presentation, but it was step too far to ask the reader to have to put up with such awful argumentation just so Arnheim could have his one up on one of America's greatest political legacies.

[John Richards · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent coverage of the topic without a lot of verbiage although some of the author's personal ideas may be debatable but that is probably the point. Covers the US Constitution and amendments in detail (The appendix contains a full copy of both (with italicized indications of where an Article has been changed by an amendment)). Mini details of key Supreme Court Justices and a full discussion of how the Supreme Court has become, to the chagrin of many, a power that the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers never intended. Interesting and a must read for those following the current situation with Donald Trump and the impeachment process or those who just wish to know more about the Constituion and how it has been viewed and interpreted over the years.

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

To a layman, it was a great way to learn about the Constitution and to delve into the intricacies of this vague and complicated document upon which our government is based. Narrated by a wonder man whose voice reminds me of the late John Houseman.

I’m so glad I read this and now I know how truly important the Supreme Court is.

[Rflutist · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a great starting point for reference. However, the only reason I am giving it three stars is that the author makes multiple cross references to "see chapter ___," which became quite annoying. That being said, however, I learned quite a bit and will keep this book in my e-reader.

[Brian Linton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Author did a great job of breaking the Constitution into terms anyone can understand.

[Ken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Took quite awhile to read it since I also found other things I needed to look up concerning this subject. It was a great book.

[Lachelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read half. :)

[Sheila · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not the most exciting of books but done well and a great refresher course in the Constitution, and very relevant today.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Entertaining. Informative. Read for FSOT.

[Promise Ceasar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good! And handy to have as a reference! :)

[Albert Soud]

I'm a better man for it.