What do you think?
Rate this book
Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights
The civil liberties and constitutional rights our nation's citizens possess—not only in theory, but in the courtroom, where the state can be forced to honor those liberties—are a uniquely American invention. And when we were taught history and learned about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we were always made aware of that uniqueness, of the extraordinary experiment that gave every citizen of this new nation a gift possessed by no others. But what, exactly, was that gift?
What liberties and rights did the Founders intend us to have? How do we get from what Professor John Finn calls the Constitution's "wonderfully elastic and vague" language to the finely tuned specifics of the Supreme Court's decisions about speech, or abortion, or religion?
And what is religion? In forbidding Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment" of religion, or "prohibiting the free exercise" of it, the Founders neglected to define it. The answer is more complicated than it seems.
In fact, as Professor Finn shows in Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights, almost everything about the Constitution, no matter how unwavering its words might appear, is more complicated than it seems at first reading, leaving a legacy of questions that multiplies with each passing decade.
Why have generations of jurists and legal scholars—not to mention legislators, presidents, and citizens—argued so long and hard about the meaning of what often appears to be unambiguous phrasing? How is it that several differing Supreme Court opinions—even those on diametrically opposed sides of a sharply disputed case—can so often all seem plausible? And how has so remarkably sparse a document as the Constitution nevertheless proven to be so complex a vision of what an ideal polity should be?
Professor Finn notes, "There is usually more than one way to understand a constitutional provision, usually more than one way to decide a case," with "few, if any, uncontested principles or issues or questions in the American constitutional order."
Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights explores the tensions that make up that order—tensions, say, between our commitment to self-governance, expressed through majority rule and the other democratic principles, and our simultaneous commitment to constitutionalism and the Bill of Rights, expressed by the need to keep the majority from acting in ways that trample on liberty.
As you might expect from such difficult issues, this is a course filled with nuance—each side of so many constitutional issues can be presented plausibly. Though none of us will agree with every decision of the Court or the constitutional interpretations on which they are constructed, it is extraordinary to experience, so directly, from throughout our history, in the carefully constructed language of the nation's leading judges, the deliberate flexibility and ambiguity that so often make even opposing opinions defensible. Indeed, this is among our Constitution's very greatest strengths.
What liberties and rights did the Founders intend us to have? How do we get from what Professor John Finn calls the Constitution's "wonderfully elastic and vague" language to the finely tuned specifics of the Supreme Court's decisions about speech, or abortion, or religion?
And what is religion? In forbidding Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment" of religion, or "prohibiting the free exercise" of it, the Founders neglected to define it. The answer is more complicated than it seems.
In fact, as Professor Finn shows in Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights, almost everything about the Constitution, no matter how unwavering its words might appear, is more complicated than it seems at first reading, leaving a legacy of questions that multiplies with each passing decade.
Why have generations of jurists and legal scholars—not to mention legislators, presidents, and citizens—argued so long and hard about the meaning of what often appears to be unambiguous phrasing? How is it that several differing Supreme Court opinions—even those on diametrically opposed sides of a sharply disputed case—can so often all seem plausible? And how has so remarkably sparse a document as the Constitution nevertheless proven to be so complex a vision of what an ideal polity should be?
Professor Finn notes, "There is usually more than one way to understand a constitutional provision, usually more than one way to decide a case," with "few, if any, uncontested principles or issues or questions in the American constitutional order."
Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights explores the tensions that make up that order—tensions, say, between our commitment to self-governance, expressed through majority rule and the other democratic principles, and our simultaneous commitment to constitutionalism and the Bill of Rights, expressed by the need to keep the majority from acting in ways that trample on liberty.
As you might expect from such difficult issues, this is a course filled with nuance—each side of so many constitutional issues can be presented plausibly. Though none of us will agree with every decision of the Court or the constitutional interpretations on which they are constructed, it is extraordinary to experience, so directly, from throughout our history, in the carefully constructed language of the nation's leading judges, the deliberate flexibility and ambiguity that so often make even opposing opinions defensible. Indeed, this is among our Constitution's very greatest strengths.
Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 2006
5 people are currently reading
70 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
December 7, 2016
My knowledge of the Bill of Rights and our civil liberties is rusty as all get-out. I'm talking vague high school recollections here and those hazy days are retreating fast in the rearview mirror. I felt like it was time to bone up!
What better way to do it than to go back to school? Well okay, there's a cheaper and more practical way. Luckily, for a time-strapped, cheap bastard like me there's The Great Courses presented by the Teaching Company, which you can often find at public libraries.
This particular 36-hour lecture is by John E. Finn, a professor with 20+ years in the Department of Government at Wesleyan University. Finn is a great lecturer in that he's engaging, sticks to the topic, but is just off-the-cuff enough to keep you on your toes. Plus, he doesn't drone. That's important. Some classes I took in college, which I really looked forward to, were destroyed by monotoned droners.
This review of Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights is for the first third of the lecture, which touches mostly upon the founding, as well as property and privacy. I enjoyed it so much, much more than I expected I would, that I've already put in a library request for the second and third parts.
Highly recommended!
What better way to do it than to go back to school? Well okay, there's a cheaper and more practical way. Luckily, for a time-strapped, cheap bastard like me there's The Great Courses presented by the Teaching Company, which you can often find at public libraries.
This particular 36-hour lecture is by John E. Finn, a professor with 20+ years in the Department of Government at Wesleyan University. Finn is a great lecturer in that he's engaging, sticks to the topic, but is just off-the-cuff enough to keep you on your toes. Plus, he doesn't drone. That's important. Some classes I took in college, which I really looked forward to, were destroyed by monotoned droners.
This review of Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights is for the first third of the lecture, which touches mostly upon the founding, as well as property and privacy. I enjoyed it so much, much more than I expected I would, that I've already put in a library request for the second and third parts.
Highly recommended!
January 16, 2022
These days it’s very difficult to talk about the Supreme Court without getting pulled into contentious political issues. For that reason, I felt a little bit leery regarding reading this book as I was interested in learning about the issues and different interpretations of the constitution and feared being preached at. Fortunately, my concerns proved baseless. John Finn does a brilliant job of keeping his own political opinions out of the issues and helping the reader to understand the tremendous complexities in just about every issue that comes before the Supreme Court. What results is an amazing collection of 36 lectures which cannot help but increase your appreciation for the Supreme Court and the tremendously important job its justices perform for the United States. That being said, there is way too much information to absorb in a single reading, especially if you listen straight though over only a few days. So plan to listen to it again someday.
If you liked this review, you can find more at www.gilbertstack.com/reviews.
If you liked this review, you can find more at www.gilbertstack.com/reviews.
March 12, 2021
A bit long at times but worth it in the end. I admire Finn and will be looking for his other lectures and books.
October 30, 2022
A very interesting topic lectured in an interesting manner by a knowledgeable prof.
June 16, 2024
This is an examination of important matters of civil liberties, but with a cramped, jaundiced eye, and now largely overtaken by rulings subsequent to its writing. Finn first dwells overlong on outdated notions of property rights, then on the rights to privacy that the Dobbs decision has so much uprooted, with religion clause jurisprudence superseded by the Court's more recent accommodationist opinions, and then on equal protection rights now undermined by Shelby County v. Holder and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Finn burdens the listener with repeated verbal ticks like "please understand" and "I hope you can see." And Finn uses now-outmoded and now-offensive terms to describe people with disabilities that were already insensitive when he recorded this course in 2006. Note that the Great Courses series also includes a 2012 course on "Privacy, Property, and Free Speech: Law and the Constitution in the 21st Century" by Jeffrey Rosen.
November 28, 2011
I couldn't finish the lecture. His numerous quotes from Scalia started a never ending tick. Perhaps one day when I have enough beer I can finish this lecture. In the meantime, I will punch anyone who says this is a free country.
June 26, 2018
These lectures on the great courses started by an overview of some of the methods used in constitutional interpretation. Methods used by judges, but also by other coequal branches of the United States government and actors at every level of our government system. Interpretive methods of originalism, textualism, structuralism, founder's intent, doctrinalism, and balance. Judges often do not subscribe to just one method of judicial interpretation but over their careers are more pragmatic in their application of law, pulling out doctrine for one case to follow precedent and preserve the capital of the court but then grasping for view of founder's intent in other situations and trying to view the law through the lens of what those who constructed the constitution meant. The course then visited a number of cases involving law, with professor Finn frequently revisiting themes and reemphasizing that law does not simply involve abstractions but often results in real life dire consequences for the people involved.
Finn's first large topic was property where he went through cases like Calder vs Bull to emphasize the ex post facto clause. The right to property was seen by many during the founding of the constitution to be sacred and thus has been involved in cases again and again including the Fletcher vs. Peck case, Charles River Bridge case, Munn vs Illinois, and famously the Lochner vs New York. "Lochner" would be a theme Finn would refer to again and again throughout the course as well as he pointed to how judges would deny that they were Lochnerizing because Lochner was seen as a case where activist judges decided to enact a legislative agenda from the bench. In the words from the dissent of Holmes: "a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory."
The second series of cases he looked at involved privacy. Privacy is defined broadly in the study of law and includes not just rights to unlawful search and seizure but extends to cases involved in abortion, marriage, and children. The foundation of a constitutional right to privacy, a right not as explicitly laid out as property in the constitution, relies on a structuralist view of the constitution. Justice Douglas speaks of "penumbras and emanations of the right to privacy" residing in the constitution and early in his life justice Brandeis wrote a paper at Harvard arguing for a right to privacy. Justice Blackmun wrote the opinion in Roe v Wade and even Professor Finn suggests that he failed to make a basic argument of where he got his trimester fetal viability framework and right to privacy with regards to abortion. Fetal viability created extraordinarily specific doctrine, the decision assumed a right to privacy and stated outright that it obviously extended to a decision to terminate a pregnancy, Rehnquist seems well in line to accuse of Lochnerizing.
Continuing with privacy, Finn goes through cases of homosexuality, showing that these great courses may be a tad dated since they did not include the latest case on equal marriage written by justice Kennedy. He then went on to right to die cases and death penalty cases, continuing in the vein of privacy cases.
The final large sections were on the first amendment and civil rights. I took much less notes as I was listening in the car while driving instead of on the bus and as it was several weeks ago I remember much less of the specifics that Finn emphasized. The cases involving freedom of religion and civil rights were definitely more familiar, with the court grappling with balance of whether legislation was used to target a specific religion or if the state simply had some broader interest at stake. They were also familiar because they are so deeply entwined with both the long and modern history of the United States.
Ultimately, I enjoyed these lectures a great deal. I think they go a long way toward clarifying how and why our constitutional democracy works. The emphasis on the constitutional part of that equation was clarifying because of the clear and dangerous shortcomings of pure democracy to result in dangers. Our constitution is a concise document and expression of what are meant to be universal values. It did not have to that way, as India's constitution is many orders of magnitude larger. That conciseness does require us to think though, requires us to examine closely our values and our reasons. I think for as long as the Truth does not reside obviously in any one person with power that examination is important in the process of governing well and governing good.
Finn's first large topic was property where he went through cases like Calder vs Bull to emphasize the ex post facto clause. The right to property was seen by many during the founding of the constitution to be sacred and thus has been involved in cases again and again including the Fletcher vs. Peck case, Charles River Bridge case, Munn vs Illinois, and famously the Lochner vs New York. "Lochner" would be a theme Finn would refer to again and again throughout the course as well as he pointed to how judges would deny that they were Lochnerizing because Lochner was seen as a case where activist judges decided to enact a legislative agenda from the bench. In the words from the dissent of Holmes: "a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory."
The second series of cases he looked at involved privacy. Privacy is defined broadly in the study of law and includes not just rights to unlawful search and seizure but extends to cases involved in abortion, marriage, and children. The foundation of a constitutional right to privacy, a right not as explicitly laid out as property in the constitution, relies on a structuralist view of the constitution. Justice Douglas speaks of "penumbras and emanations of the right to privacy" residing in the constitution and early in his life justice Brandeis wrote a paper at Harvard arguing for a right to privacy. Justice Blackmun wrote the opinion in Roe v Wade and even Professor Finn suggests that he failed to make a basic argument of where he got his trimester fetal viability framework and right to privacy with regards to abortion. Fetal viability created extraordinarily specific doctrine, the decision assumed a right to privacy and stated outright that it obviously extended to a decision to terminate a pregnancy, Rehnquist seems well in line to accuse of Lochnerizing.
Continuing with privacy, Finn goes through cases of homosexuality, showing that these great courses may be a tad dated since they did not include the latest case on equal marriage written by justice Kennedy. He then went on to right to die cases and death penalty cases, continuing in the vein of privacy cases.
The final large sections were on the first amendment and civil rights. I took much less notes as I was listening in the car while driving instead of on the bus and as it was several weeks ago I remember much less of the specifics that Finn emphasized. The cases involving freedom of religion and civil rights were definitely more familiar, with the court grappling with balance of whether legislation was used to target a specific religion or if the state simply had some broader interest at stake. They were also familiar because they are so deeply entwined with both the long and modern history of the United States.
Ultimately, I enjoyed these lectures a great deal. I think they go a long way toward clarifying how and why our constitutional democracy works. The emphasis on the constitutional part of that equation was clarifying because of the clear and dangerous shortcomings of pure democracy to result in dangers. Our constitution is a concise document and expression of what are meant to be universal values. It did not have to that way, as India's constitution is many orders of magnitude larger. That conciseness does require us to think though, requires us to examine closely our values and our reasons. I think for as long as the Truth does not reside obviously in any one person with power that examination is important in the process of governing well and governing good.
September 25, 2018
A solid, unbiased overview of the evolution and expansion (in most cases) of civil liberties in the U.S. Unlike so many works on this topic which tend to address civil liberties in distinct vacuums, Finn expertly ties seemingly disparate concepts together to provide a “big picture” of this complex landscape (i.e., the interconnection among freedom of speech, freedom of religion, privacy, property, due process, equal protection, etc.).
As this is intended for a lay audience, some of the doctrines are perhaps overly simplified, but Finn makes clear that a perfect recitation of constitutional doctrines is not his intent. Still, I wish he would have waded into the weeds a little more than he does.
As this is intended for a lay audience, some of the doctrines are perhaps overly simplified, but Finn makes clear that a perfect recitation of constitutional doctrines is not his intent. Still, I wish he would have waded into the weeds a little more than he does.
October 25, 2022
Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights by John Finn is a capable, if about twenty years out of date, approach to the study of civil liberties. Finn is good for the most part, though on occasion he will provide a tortured hypothetical that does him no favors. He tries to be fair, but it is pretty clear that he is either an originalist or someone who has sympathy with that position. Some of his conclusions about protected classes are out of date, and some of his arguments may seem bizarre from the standpoint of today. Still, Finn is an effective lecturer and he certainly does his best. The way he approaches the material often leads the listener to want to continue. There's a lot of value here, particularly if you are interested in the subject.
September 20, 2018
This is a good primer for anyone interested in more than a superficial dive into how the Supreme Court examines the cases it considers and the influences on our liberties.
July 31, 2022
An excellent synopsis and well presented lecture on constitutional law and Supreme Court precedent. Unfortunately, it is dated given the recent decisions of the US Supreme Court.
June 21, 2025
Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights by Professor John E. Finn Phd.
36 Lectures
1 What Are Civil Liberties?
2 The Bill of Rights—An Overview
3 Two Types of Liberty—Positive and Negative
4 The Court and Constitutional Interpretation
5 Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review
6 Private Property and the Founding
7 Lochner v. New York and Economic Due Process
8 The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment
9 Fundamental Rights—Privacy and Personhood
10 Privacy—Early Cases
11 Roe v. Wade and Reproductive Autonomy
12 Privacy and Autonomy—From Roe to Casey
13 Other Privacy Interests—Family
14 Other Privacy Interests—Sexuality
15 Same-Sex Marriages and the Constitution
16 The Right to Die and the Constitution
17 Cruel and Unusual? The Death Penalty
18 The First Amendment—An Overview
19 Internal Security and the First Amendment
20 Symbolic Speech and Expressive Conduct
21 Indecency and Obscenity
22 Hate Speech and Fighting Words
23 The Right to Silence
24 Why Is Freedom of Religion So Complex?
25 School Prayer and the Establishment Clause
26 Religion—Strict Separation or Accommodation?
27 The Free Exercise Clause—Acting on Beliefs
28 Free Exercisee and “the Peyote Case”
29 Two Religion Clauses—One Definition?
30 Slavery and Dred Scott to Equal Protection
31 Brown v. Board of Education
32 Equality and Affirmative Action
33 Equality and Gender Discrimination
34 Gender Discrimination as Semi-Suspect
35 The Future of Equal Protection?
36 Citizens and Civil Liberties
I enjoyed these lectures on the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties. I have an idea that this course was designed for pre-law or law school classes as it does go in great depth on certain cases and issues.
I do not remember a case on the second amendment at all. What I liked about these classes was learning how the Supreme Court works and what their job is. They are required to interpret the Constitution and whenever they step outside of those boundaries they are called “Lochnering” after a famous case in lecture 7. The justices in this case seemed to make up the law as they went along and did not use the Constitution as the basis of the judgement.
Another portion that struck me was the duality of the Freedom of Religion laws. The first is that no establishment of a religion is allowed and the second is that people are allowed to believe in their own religions. Obviously, if your religion believed that killing your neighbors would have you attain heaven, that would have to be restricted. Most of the cases dealt with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.
The next lectures had to do with slavery and civil rights. The professor explained the Dred Scott decision differently than I had ever learned before. Basically, since a black man in those days was considered property, the Court treated Dred Scott as stolen goods.
That goes way back to the compromise in Founding the Constitution. Thank goodness our Constitution is fluid enough that we can do away with bad laws without destroying our government.
These lectures were produced before the Gay Marriage decision but he does touch on what was happening at the time he taught. Women’s rights are also touched on as well as Roe vs. Wade. The reason we are still fighting over Roe vs. Wade is that per the professor it was a badly written ruling.
These lectures last around 30 minutes and I believe it was well worth my time.
36 Lectures
1 What Are Civil Liberties?
2 The Bill of Rights—An Overview
3 Two Types of Liberty—Positive and Negative
4 The Court and Constitutional Interpretation
5 Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review
6 Private Property and the Founding
7 Lochner v. New York and Economic Due Process
8 The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment
9 Fundamental Rights—Privacy and Personhood
10 Privacy—Early Cases
11 Roe v. Wade and Reproductive Autonomy
12 Privacy and Autonomy—From Roe to Casey
13 Other Privacy Interests—Family
14 Other Privacy Interests—Sexuality
15 Same-Sex Marriages and the Constitution
16 The Right to Die and the Constitution
17 Cruel and Unusual? The Death Penalty
18 The First Amendment—An Overview
19 Internal Security and the First Amendment
20 Symbolic Speech and Expressive Conduct
21 Indecency and Obscenity
22 Hate Speech and Fighting Words
23 The Right to Silence
24 Why Is Freedom of Religion So Complex?
25 School Prayer and the Establishment Clause
26 Religion—Strict Separation or Accommodation?
27 The Free Exercise Clause—Acting on Beliefs
28 Free Exercisee and “the Peyote Case”
29 Two Religion Clauses—One Definition?
30 Slavery and Dred Scott to Equal Protection
31 Brown v. Board of Education
32 Equality and Affirmative Action
33 Equality and Gender Discrimination
34 Gender Discrimination as Semi-Suspect
35 The Future of Equal Protection?
36 Citizens and Civil Liberties
I enjoyed these lectures on the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties. I have an idea that this course was designed for pre-law or law school classes as it does go in great depth on certain cases and issues.
I do not remember a case on the second amendment at all. What I liked about these classes was learning how the Supreme Court works and what their job is. They are required to interpret the Constitution and whenever they step outside of those boundaries they are called “Lochnering” after a famous case in lecture 7. The justices in this case seemed to make up the law as they went along and did not use the Constitution as the basis of the judgement.
Another portion that struck me was the duality of the Freedom of Religion laws. The first is that no establishment of a religion is allowed and the second is that people are allowed to believe in their own religions. Obviously, if your religion believed that killing your neighbors would have you attain heaven, that would have to be restricted. Most of the cases dealt with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.
The next lectures had to do with slavery and civil rights. The professor explained the Dred Scott decision differently than I had ever learned before. Basically, since a black man in those days was considered property, the Court treated Dred Scott as stolen goods.
That goes way back to the compromise in Founding the Constitution. Thank goodness our Constitution is fluid enough that we can do away with bad laws without destroying our government.
These lectures were produced before the Gay Marriage decision but he does touch on what was happening at the time he taught. Women’s rights are also touched on as well as Roe vs. Wade. The reason we are still fighting over Roe vs. Wade is that per the professor it was a badly written ruling.
These lectures last around 30 minutes and I believe it was well worth my time.
September 1, 2013
This is an amazing lecture series. I am not a legal scholar by any means, and this might be the first lecture series I have ever listened to, so it is a little hard for me to say more than I was very very impressed at the way that all the pieces were organized, put together, and explained clearly.
Three stars means I really liked it, but fear it may be a little too esoteric for general consumption.
Three stars means I really liked it, but fear it may be a little too esoteric for general consumption.
January 1, 2016
Every American needs to listen to this lecture or something similar to understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights a little more. He answers questions on what the constitution does and does not say about freedoms pertaining to speech, religion, property, and equality. He also talks about the constitution vs interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court.
February 1, 2011
thorough look at how the courts have adjusted, conjoled, and tweaked the Constitution the best way they know how. Not an easy job to try to figure out all the nuances of a document that is not very specifically written.
July 14, 2015
Awesome. Such great depth and insight, even on issues/cases I already knew about. I loved how Finn continued to address the role of the judiciary throughout. +I loved the humorous commentary that would slip in now and then.
May 25, 2016
Interesting note that many people say they know what the bible says that was written thousands of years ago, when Jews are today still arguing over what it says and our Bill of Rights, which is only a couple of centuries old, we are still challenging what it says!
January 28, 2012
Listened to parts 1 and 2 of this Great Courses series while on trip to Texas. I feel lots more informed about what the Bill of Rights and civil liberties mean. Great lecturer and story teller!
September 12, 2013
Very well organized lectures. Delivery was excellent.
June 23, 2015
Great Book! Very interesting. Learned some new things about the Court and the Constitution!
April 14, 2009
Great mini-Con law type class, and it discusses my grandfather. What more could you want?
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews