This is a remarkable book. The author's knowledge, insight, analysis and synthesis are amazing. There's too much to praise about it, so I'll just mention one aspect: Amar makes a very compelling case that from the beginning slavery was a disease spreading infection in our society and political system (aided by the 3/5 clause), increasingly corrupting our character and institutions until a terribly bloody breaking point was reached. The evil was partially righted, then amorality returned, allowing a viciousness to fester until another crisis led to new progress. But it remains that slavery and its legacy constitute the central national failure, which we still haven't nearly corrected. Most of the book is quite positive, and slavery's not the principal focus, but Amar's treatment of it is both convincing and unforgettable.

For decades I've been wandering about with a mish mash of semi-contradictory ideas about the constitution. Mr. Amar has managed to correct, justify, and reframe most of them into a (_thoroughly_ documented) coherent whole.

Where the constitution is unclear, he quotes the debates and letters of the founders explaining what they meant. Where there is modern debate, he footnotes where to look for different viewpoints. Where there was debate during the writing of the constitution, he tells you who said what and why.

That would probably be enough to earn 5 stars, but he somehow managed to turn an erudite treatise on the history of one government into a page-turner. I don't know how, but there it is...

Wow, I learned more about the consitution then I ever could have imagined. I didn't have any idea about many of the themes and debates over the constitution and it's amendments. I'm a novice at political thinking, before the presidential campaign I could've care less about politics. Some of this is a bit over my head since I don't have a background in law or political history. However, Mr. Amar explains it well enough that most should understand. I can't recommend it enough for anyone interested in the constitution.

Although there are some tedious places, the book has a number of very valuable and interesting insights - especially the topics of the Second Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, and the "privileges and immunities" clause stood out for me. He does a good job interweaving historical context and the text of the document. There are some unexpected emphases and omissions:for example, it emphasizes slavery more often and more heavily than I expected for an issue that was resolved 140 years ago, and there was a little less on the Bill of Rights and on executive power than I was expecting, although those are more contemporary issues. His chapter on the path, pre-Civil War to the 13th amendment, was terrifically concise but there is very little discussion on the issue of habeas corpus during the war. These aren't complaints, just notifications; overall it was very stimulating. Like most constitutional scholars, he has some outside-the-box interpretations that are obviously developed to accomplish a particular outcome but these are fruitful to reflect on as well.

What an absolutely fantastic reference! Much of this book's praise has been sung by previous reviewers, but I'd like to add that I especially appreciate Amar's powerful paradoxes and equally profound "what-ifs." Buy the man's book so he blesses all of our futures with even more jewels of his erudition.

This book is at once a very scholarly and entirely accesible history of the US Constitution and 27 Amendments. It can be read by pretty much anybdy, without any revious knowledge of the law or history required. Reed prevides the reader with an engaging story, as well as giving an ample number of endnotes that add extra insight and pieces of information to the reader.

It took me two or three months to slog through this book, but I'm very glad I did. As a young adult who is very interested in politics and the foundation of this country, I found this book to contain great insight into why things are the way they are. I find myself referring to it constantly.

this may sound like an unusual confession, but, i found it very difficult to put this book down. amar does an excellent job of helping us understand the history and political factors prevalent in the drafting and ratification of the constitution and amendments. he accomplishes the task of helping us to better understand some of the thinking of the days, by the drafters and american people. he writes in a clear style, intriguing the reader. while i am in no way a constitutional law expert, i can say that he probably did get all of his facts accurate - he only had 3 typos throughout the entire book (that i could identify). given the millions of pages of documents available to the expert on u.s. constitutional law and history, amar synthesizes the material brilliantly. i'm ashamed, although frankly grateful, that i was able to delight in reading this great work for such an affordable price and i would have found it an excellent resource at 3x the price! i wish that such a work were recommended reading for all of us.

Without history the Constitution is an incomplete set of norms without a soul. With its history is an epic that give liberty a house to continuosly develop.This book is an indispensable tool to understand the Constitution and its dynamics.A historic contribution.
Héctor Luis Acevedo
Former Mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico
Professor of Law and Political Science

This is an excellent history of the Constitution as it was drafted. It places each provision within its historical context, drawing heavily on the history of English common law, the law of the pre-revolutionary colonies, and the constitutions of the several states prior to the "Miracle at Philadelphia." If you are interested in these things, then this is a fantastic read.

The problem is that this book is not really relevant to any of today's constitutional issues. It's a positive historical account of the drafting, NOT a normative critique of subsequent constitutional jurisprudence. Even "originalists" will find it hard to apply Amar's insights to modern con law.

Amar's theses are admittingly interesting. Among them are a) that jury power was much more important in the minds of the drafters than it is to us today, b) that slavery was virtually enshrined in the Constitution, by virtue of its structure, c) that the Fourth Amendment was not meant to be enforced by judges (via the exclusionary rule), but instead by grand juries (by refusing to indict) and petit juries (by nullifying unpopular laws and awarding damages to victims of illegal searches and seizures).

But what are we to do with these insights? Some have suggested that the exclusionary rule might be on the way out with the current Supreme Court, but there seems little hope that jury power (waning for 30 years) might be suddenly revived by a hard look at the Constitution. Slavery is obviously gone, never to return, and nobody today really cares what the Founders said about it.

For good or ill, the Constitution in force today is 99% an artifact of the post-Civil War Amendments and the Supreme Court decisions of the 20th Century. Together, these are "America's Constitution" and neither is very well covered by this book. Today, the Founders and the Convention are really of academic interest only.

Personally, it was my hope in approaching this book that Amar's authoritative take on the Constitution would resolve for me my questions about contemporary constitutional jurisprudence. In particular, I have always hoped that a properly "originalist" view of the Constitution would demonstrate it to be a much more radical document than today's self-proclaimed "originalists" believe. I would like to have my cake (original intent) and eat it too (i.e. enjoy the broad rights protected by the 20th Century Constituion).

This book was sold to me as the definitive case that the original Constitution was firmly "liberal" document (in the 18th Cen. sense). And, indeed, Amar's insights support this interpretation, up to a point. Amar demonstrates that the Constitution as drafted was indeed a very populist document. And he does very effectively dismantle the old (progressive/Marxist) saw that the Constitution was a mere tool of propertied interests.

But the problem is that, while Amar's positive account of the history of Constitution is masterful, it has no obvious normative implications. His observations are just too far removed from the present day to have much bearing on our current constitutinal aporias. His arguments could really be marshalled on either side of the contemporary debate, and he seems to have no serious commitments to either camp.

So, if you want to learn history this is an excellent book, but just don't anticipate any strong cocktail-party conversation leverage to come out of it.

This is an excellent history of the Constitution as it was drafted. It places each provision within its historical context, drawing heavily on the history of English common law, the law of the pre-revolutionary colonies, and the constitutions of the several states prior to the "Miracle at Philadelphia." If you are interested in these things, then this is a fantastic read.

The problem is that this book is not really relevant to any of today's Constitutional issues. It's a positive historical account of the drafting, NOT a normative critique of subsequent constitutional jurisprudence. Even "originalists" will find it hard to apply Amar's insights to modern con law.

Amar's theses are admittingly interesting. Among them are a) that jury power was much more important in the minds of the drafters than it is to us today, b) that slavery was virtually enshrined in the Constitution, by virtue of its structure, c) that the Fourth Amendment was not meant to be enforced by judges (via the exclusionary rule), but instead by grand juries (by refusing to indict) and petit juries (by nullifying unpopular laws and awarding damages to victims of illegal searches and seizures).

But what are we to do with these insights? Some have suggested that the exclusionary rule might be on the way out with the current Supreme Court, but there seems little hope that jury power (waning for 30 years) might be suddenly revived by a hard look at the Constitution. Slavery is obviously gone, never to return, and nobody today really cares what the Founders said about it.

For good or ill, the Constitution in force today is 99% an artifact of the post-Civil War Amendments and the Supreme Court decisions of the 20th Century. Together, these are "America's Constitution" and neither is very well covered by this book. Today, the Founders and the Convention are really of academic interest only.

So, if you want to learn history this is an excellent book, but just don't anticipate any cocktail-party conversation leverage to come out of it.

If you--like this reader--want to be an educated newspaper reader and voter, then this book is worth the investment in time and money. Professional reviews indicate Amar's brilliance in the field of constitutional law, but that brilliance translates into a highy readable book.

If one thing is clear, it's that the issues facing the Supreme Court (and the Nation) today are the same ones that faced the Founders and their immediate successors. It's also clear that divisive issues (slavery among them) were knowingly (and regrettably) set aside for the sake of what could be agreed upon. And we are still facing many of those issues.

This book may leave the reader not just better educated but with more ability to analyze contentious issues and with more patience as they are worked out publicly.