Originally purchased as gift for husband as accompaniment to B&N hardcover Constitution & Bill of Rights. He thought it was such a great gift that he had me buy another set to give to his dad...and I bought another one for my grandfather. They all loved it.

The information in this book is invaluable for anyone of any age wanting to understand more clearly just what our Constitution is all about, especially how it affects our daily lives. The explanations are written well, neither writing down to the reader or getting lost in pretended legalities.
I recommend this to readers of just about any age who are interested in the real principles on which our country was founded because it clearly shows just what we've been losing by being "politically correct." It also makes clear the limits to which government should adhere.

This is an impressive compilation. For a one-volume commentary on the United States Constitution, this book achieves its purpose. It is written on the high-school level, with a USA Today-type layout of images and text, sidebar vocabulary and definitions, and boxed "For further consideration" essays that round out the discussion of the ideas. Clearly popular writing, Linda R. Monk also makes this book enjoyable and entraining.

However, I say 80% of the way there for several reasons. The main problem is that she begins the discussion with a jackrabbit start. There is five introductory paragraphs, then the core discussion begins. The book could have used a section of preliminaries. One chapter would have dealt with the rule of law, discussing the Magna Charta, Federalist 15, and Thomas Paine's statement in Common Sense, The Rights of Man and Other Essential Writings of Thomas Paine (Signet Classics) "THE LAW IS KING."

Another chapter would deal with the Declaration of Independence, treating it in the same fashion as she does the rest of the Constitution. The Declaration and the Constitution are twin documents, both twin pillars of American's freedom. In fact, the Constitution is the culmination of the Declaration's spirit, intent, and ideals. It is our first Bill of Rights.

Then a third chapter would be a conclusion, dealing with the Gettysburg Address and all things Lincoln. In his speeches, Lincoln both reinvented and revitalized the Declaration of Impendence and the Constitution. The way we see both the Declaration and the Constitution in many ways was shaped by Lincoln's ideals. Read Monk's commentary on Amendment XIV. This amendment is pure Lincoln.

The second area of concern has to do with the commentary. First, she should have used more quotes from The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics). This is like biographising Moses, but neglecting the Stone Tables. Of course using Ted Nugent and Michael Moore adds spice to discussion, but who is a better authority on the Constitution--James Madison or Oprah? Celebrities are just high-profile loudmouths, not experts.

Case in point 1: In discussing the Necessary and Proper Clause, Monk neglected to include Hamilton's commentary in Federalist 33. He explained that the Elastic Clause was tied to Art. VI, Section 2, that it was just a redundancy saying that Congress haw power to enact laws, but that the powers were limited to the enumerated powers. "In pursuance thereof."

Case in point 2: The section on Amendment X is wonderful. However, Monk never cites Madison's commentary on the division of labor of Federal and State government:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." (Federalist 45).

Some the sidebar quotes were rather strange. On page 153, they have an oddball rant that suggests the only reason why people own guns is to exercise a right to homicide. Then Lawrence H. Tribe's article on page 97 contains five fallacies--furtive, circular reasoning, well-poisoning, and false analogy Historians' Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought.

However, she gets it right in two sidebar quotes. The Alex Haig "I am in control here" (259) is classic. And Clinton's "is" quote on page 87 is quintessentially Bill. Including both of these gives this book another coveted Amazon.com rating star. By the way, to see what "is" means, read Aristotle's Metaphysics, book IV The Basic Works of Aristotle (Modern Library Classics).

Three nitpicks:

* She titles the preface as "The Constitution as Conversation." Well, it is no such thing. It is high-order philosophizing. It is law. Forget Oprah-sponsored group therapy, but remember that behind all political wrangling is an assessment on how to use the coercive and capital force of the Government.
* The book was published in 2003. But the Kelo v. New London (2005) ruling changes eminent domain discussion. Now government can take land to increase the tax base. We have become serfs!
* Page 34, dealing with impeachment say "Only twice . . ." Get real--there will be more presidential impeachments. Write, "So far . . . "

Despite these critiques, this book is a gem. No wonder it is mandatory reading at Brigham Young University. Use it for High School Civics or for Home Schooling.

Considering how often people refer to the Constitution when arguing over controversial issues, it's amazing how little many of us really know about what it says, why it says it, and what it means. This annotated guide seems like a great place to start for those who want to learn more about these and other aspects of the Constitution. Each chapter presents an article or ammendment (each in order), followed by descriptions that include photos and cartoons, consideration of relevant historical issues, notable quotes and definitions. The organization and style make it great for both browsing and reading cover to cover. I would have really benefitted from having a basic text on the Constitution as interesting and entertaining as this when I was in school. It may not be the most engrossing book for everyone, and may be a bit too basic for those with previous training in Constitutional law, but for many people who are at least somewhat curious about the topic and motivated to acquire a good basic background on the Constitution, this book will be highly enjoyable and well worthwhile.

The Words We Live By is a readily accessible, quick reference analysis of the Constitution of the United States of America. It makes use of a functional format (that resembles a text book) as well as interesting little anecdotes that restore a portion of the textual and historical romance that you naturally lose in any abridgment. It presents the analytical and background material in a manner that easily correlates to the corresponding text within the Constitution. Taking a "one bite at a time" type of approach, The Words We Live By briefly examines our Constitution in multiple contexts--a refreshing little jaunt, through a critical piece of our heritage.

Linda Monk employs an informative method in her writing; it kind of resembles a letter that you'd write home, describing your new surroundings. She tells things, quite technically, "how they are," and then proceeds to give some necessary background. In her own words, "the Constitution is also the product of an ongoing conversation among Americans about the meaning of freedom in their daily lives."(Monk 9) Frequently she goes beyond glossary or the bare minimum historical information to reveal glimpses of the fascinating complexity of it all. I didn't always feel edified by the sidebar comments made, but they were varied and presented a broad spectrum of things one wouldn't normally have considered. I didn't find this book to be constructed to lead the reader to any one opinion. While personally I don't care too much for her type of voice, she did employ her method very well, and it effectively brought out appealing details of the study of our history.

The book begins by establishing some common ground with a general introduction, as does each section. The chapters begin with the section of the Constitution that is to be analyzed. Linda Monk then breaks that section down into a few lines of the text which she explicates in a few paragraphs. It's easy to find reference for difficult or uncommon terms, as they are set aside with a brief explanation in the margins, near to where they are discussed in the main body of the text. The pictures and comics, on most of the pages, make it easy to interpret or find specific points in the ongoing discussion. Strewn throughout the chapters are these lovely, little, purple boxes that contain examples, outside opinions, or related historical/current events. This leads us to the second, main characteristic of the book

One strength to Monk's analysis is the variety in connections it makes between the constitutional text and our history and current events. The comparisons made tend to be objective, for the most part, as well they should be. She doesn't come out and say, "Here's an example of the elastic clause, and by the way, this is what the answer is by the Constitution!" Rather, she presents specific examples and then connects the reader with what parts of the constitution they pertain to. A complaint I had of this, was that I felt certain issues presented were connected to more sections of the Constitution than were mentioned. Considering the scope of this work, though, Monk's analysis meets reasonable expectations. Even though I didn't find that all of the tidbits presented by Monk were necessarily helpful or appropriate to the current discussion, they did serve their purpose well. Without such tangents, an analytical breakdown of this legal document would have not been as engaging, to say the least. I found this aspect to be the book's greatest strength as well as weakness.

Monk's conversational manner brings out the richness of our heritage in an interesting way. Her discussion holds a bit of a story telling air to it but puts an atypical tilt on things. While not quite as dramatic as a pure historical narrative would have been, it sheds some additional light on our views as a culture. It follows a form comparative to a philosophical narrative; that is, it tells the story of the message or idea that defines America rather than looking over a complete, chronological sequence of events. This development leads us to ponder what the motivation is exactly for our political and ethical convictions. The text evokes an honest question: "Did we do the right things in the past?" and based on the answer to that, "What parts of our history and Constitution can we look to as `words to live by?'" There seems to be a popular trend in America to dig up the dirt in our past. I found Monk's questions to be quite refreshing compared to the historical mud-slinging I've seen so often. I didn't find her sheltering any skeletons in our closet, and her questions/observations posed were respectful and fair.

A theme throughout the book is how our Constitution has changed--hopefully towards liberty and justice. In addition to the original constitution, all of the amendments are annotated. In most cases a brief history is given that explains the context pertinent to that given amendment. Then, (in some cases more than others) Monk attempts to address some of the arguments for and against that amendment. Numerous Supreme Court rulings are used which partially illustrate the aftermath of the amendments. This is also done within the analysis of the main body of the Constitution, though, I am a little disappointed that very little of the general aftermath is discussed. The analysis on the amendments section seemed, to me, to be more interpretive than critical or informative. Very little time is spent, in most cases, on how a specific amendment changed the political scene. In all fairness to the author, though, it would be difficult to make any general statement like that without expressing bias.

The book has very little in the way of a formal conclusion; it lasts less than one page. Most of that one page is quotations from other authors. It shouldn't come as a surprise to the reader that Linda Monk doesn't pass any final judgment. She makes two statements in summary of what she tried to do with her book. First, an inquiry about the future: "What amendments might come next in the U. S. Constitution?" What will the future hold, and how much of that will rely on us. Stemming off this thought she closes, leaving us with the charge "To decide for ourselves what freedom is. That is the greatest gift that our Constitution gives us--a way to decide, along with our fellow citizens, what words we will live by." (Monk 263) That seems to summarize The Words We Live By in my mind. While I did want to see more in the way of history and general, macro analysis, I can't deny that this book served its purpose as stated from these sentences. I would recommend this book to anyone approaching voting age or who feels that they don't have an interest in this nation. Most people who read this book will come away with an increased sense of their responsibility and power to make a difference. It will increase one's desire to be aware and be actively engaged in the future formation of our law.

it was a very informative book, kindof like high school government class all over again.

Linda Monk's book on the American Constitution, `The Words We Live By', is a wonderfully accessible and interesting introduction to the foundational document of the American polity. She starts in her introductory material by presenting the Constitution not as a dry and dusty piece of parchment to be revered but essentially ignored, but rather as an engagement of peoples in open conversation, something that can and should have an impact on the daily life and work of all Americans. Drawing inspiration from Judge Learned Hand, she states, `For the Constitution to have meaning, it must be not only the words we recite, but also the words we live by.'

Monk recognises the importance of the Constitution, and its unique place in history, but does not give it false priority by forgetting its historic underpinnings. The founders who gathered in convention in 1787 brought their backgrounds and training with them, as well as a sense of self-government and an awareness of what might work and not work in the newly formed nation, gained from 150 years of essentially self-rule as colonies.

The framers of the Constitution were not under the illusion that they were creating a perfect document, as Monk states, quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes - `it is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.' The preamble of the Constitution, perhaps the best know part, strives to form `a more perfect union', not a perfect one.

Monk draws information from the Federalist papers, other documents contemporary with the Constitution, and artwork and illustrations to help the text come alive. For each section, be they preamble, article, or amendment, Monk first sets forth the text, and then provides a passage-by-passage commentary. Often this refers to court cases, government structures and procedures, and significant events that helped to shape the Constitution, even as it has worked to shape American society. There are side notes with definitions for key words and terms, quotable quotes from historians as well as historical figures, and text boxes separate from the main text body to draw particular emphasis on points of greater interest in contemporary issues (George Will on the question of term limits for Congress; Benjamin Franklin on property qualifications for voting; etc.).

Monk ends as she began, writing of the Constitution as words to live by in the future. She characterises the ongoing debate as one between different ideas of freedom - some see freedom as freedom from something (government intrusion and more), whereas others see freedom as freedom to achieve something. How this will ultimately be played out on a constitutional level is speculation, as is the conjecture on what may become future amendments to the Constitution.

Overall, this was a fun book to read, informative and interesting. Monk draws text box and side-bar quotations and examples from across the political spectrum and across American history, to give a reasonable balance toward the issues politically. This is useful particularly for high school and undergraduate civics and political science classes, as well as American history classes. It is also good for general readers, and has a layout that shows an awareness of the importance of different colours, images, typefaces and more for keeping visual interest in addition to interest in content.

This will help one live by the words more fully.

As a student who began an in-depth study of the Constitution this year, this book was my introduction to the Constitution. Never having known that much about the government or Constitution, this book was incredibly helpful in giving a fairly deep overview of what the Constitution meant, clause by clause.

I would recommend this book to two types of folks:
1) If you have kids in junior high or high school. This would be an excellent resource for them in their civics classes in regards to providing an excellent, though shallow, perspective on the Constitution.
2) If you haven't yet required the skills to search the Internet for specific topics or don't possess readibly available access to the Internet.

Ms. Monk does an excellent job with the perspective she provides. My quibble is how thin this volume is, quite frankly I was hoping for more perspective. I do admit I occasionally use it, thus three stars, but I find myself mostly using the Internet or my other books on the Constitution as reference sources rather than Ms. Monk's publication.

I would recommend this book to two types of folks:
1) If you have kids in junior high or high school. This would be an excellent resource for them in their civics classes in regards to providing an excellent, though shallow, perspective on the Constitution.
2) If you haven't yet required the skills to search the Internet for specific topics or don't possess readibly available access to the Internet.

Ms. Monk does an excellent job with the perspective she provides. My quibble is how thin this volume is, quite frankly I was hoping for more perspective. I do admit I occasionally use it, thus three stars, but I find myself mostly using the Internet or my other books on the Constitution as reference sources rather than Ms. Monk's publication.

This book provides an insightful view of the constitution, and clearly articulates the meaning of the passages we hold so dear. It also creates ground for a much deeper appreciation of the form of government to which we submit. Anyone who enjoys politics should read this book-as it not only explains the Constitution, but also the historical significance behind several of its articles.

Linda R. Monk, author of _The Bill of Rights: A User's Guide_, has done an amazingly fine job with this book. If you want a one-volume introduction to the Constitution of the United States, this is it. (As a lawyer I try to keep an eye out for books I can recommend to people who want to learn how U.S. law works. This one and Jay Feinman's _Law 101_ are two of the best.)

In just over two hundred pages, Monk walks the reader through the text of the entire document (including the Bill of Rights), giving history, relevant cases, and an overview of competing interpretations. Sidebars present relevant quotations from, well, lots of people -- Charlton Heston on the Second Amendment, Ted Nugent on the importance of copyright, and tons of others. Monk makes her selections from across the political spectrum and she carefully refrains from taking sides herself. Terms that won't be familiar to the typical reader are defined in the margins.

Despite what you may have heard, her presentation is neither 'liberal' nor 'revisionist'. (For example, her presentation on the Second Amendment is nicely handled; we hear from all sides, but Monk makes clear that a federal appellate court has held that the right to bear arms is unambiguously an _individual_ right.) In fact, she does remarkably well at presenting all major points of view on each issue within a very short space, and she doesn't slight anyone; any reviewer who thinks otherwise didn't read the book very carefully (if at all).

Don't let the noise from the peanut gallery scare you off. People who don't want a 'living constitution' don't have a clue what it would be like to have a dead one. (For one thing, libertarians -- of whom I am one -- would be miserable. The police wouldn't need warrants to tap phone lines; electronic eavesdropping wasn't a 'search' until 1967, when _Katz v. U.S._ expanded the Fourth Amendment to protect us wherever and whenever we have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. And yes, that case is covered in here -- along with _Olmstead_, which it overruled, and _Kyllo_, which expands it to cover thermal imaging.)

Highly recommended to anyone who wants to know what the Constitution says and means. And that should include all Americans -- even the ones who already have copies of the Cato Institute's Constitution and Declaration booklet.

The annotated footnotes convey the modern statist revisionist interpretation of the Constitution. Oh, the Second Amendment affirms the state's right to keep firearms... States always had a problem procuring arms, so apparently they needed to affirm their right to have arms huh? --Cynicism-- Liberals love their so called "Living Constitution," where it is warm and fuzzy and beholden to the peculiar interprations of Supreme Court justices when they feel we've reached the next stage of social evolution. Every so often, they a take a deep breath, and uncover new "rights" in the "penumbras and emanations" that are actually hidden in our Constitution. They found the right to privacy for instance, which has a corollary right to infanticide (i.e. Roe v. Wade, legalisation of abortion.) Likewise, they have discovered old rights (i.e. right to keep and bear arms) really weren't rights at all, but just misunderstood... Oh for joy! Three cheers for the junior-varsity Congress we know as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Get the Cato Institute's Constitution and Declaration booklet in one and spare yourself the poor revisionist commentary.

This is a great book, especially for introducing advanced junior high and senior high kids to the US Constitution and the issues involved, or for adults who want a good overview of the Constitution, its meaning, and the sides of each issue.

It contains quotes from founding fathers and from famous and ordinary citizens from revolutionary period to the present.

The author does a good job of impartially presenting different sides of the issues.

I wish the author had included the large numbers of violations of 4th Amendment (search and seizure) that have occurred to families who have chosen to educate their children at home, even when parents have indicated at the door the need for social workers and school personnel to have a valid search warrant. Such information can be found a www.hslda.org , particularly at http://www.hslda.org/search.asp . This is a very real and current battle being waged for the rights of citizens that is guaranteed by the 4th amendment.

If rights are denied to the few, the rights of all are in danger.

Anyway, this is an interesting book, and does a good job of explaining the meaning of the constitution step-by-step, and of including controversies surrounding each issue.

I really liked this book and I feel like a better American for having taken the time too learn more about the document that made America the democracy envied around the world. I believe that every American should take it upon themselves to learn about their constitution instead of listening to what the talking heads and politicians tell them what it says. Maybe then we wouldn't have some of the problems we have. Now, I tend to be a liberal/progressive individual politically, but even I found some bias in the author's opinions, especially concerning the 2nd amendment, but that's what is so great about living in a free society: you can make up your own mind about such things.

To put it simply but emphatically, The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide To The Constitution by Linda R. Monk should be in every school and community library collection in America. Divided into two major sections (Part I: The Constitution Of The United States; Part II: Amendments To The Constitution Of The United States), the highly readable, easy to assimilate text is enhanced with occasion b/w photography. From high-school students fulfilling school assignments about the Constitution, to adults wanting to refresh themselves with respect to national issues of controversy with reference to Constitutional rights and responsibilities (especially with issues arising from the current "War on Terrorism" and "The Patriot Act"), The Words We Live By is perfectly suited as an informed and informative reference.

Today I'm making up for years of avoiding history because the the classes I took in school demanded memorization of facts and dates, based on history-in-a-box principles. I've come to realize that history represents the same kind of confusing mixture of pro and con, give and take, good and evil that today's social, political and economic issues do. That fascinates me, and now I can't get enough of history -- yesterday's and today's.

That's the reason I find "The Words We Live By" both a great text and a great read. Linda Monk uses people's quotes and stories that bring the Constitution alive as a document that affects our lives in ways we seldom recognize.

The quotes from Ben Franklin, from a black soldier from Louisiana fighting for his rights in the Civil War, from Norma McCorvey, the real Jane Roe in the Roe v. Wade -- and dozens more -- help me understand the real people who have created the essence and strength of America's government.

If this book had been available to me in my high school's American History class, I would have loved history from the beginning. I think it should be in every American History classroom in the U.S.

I found this book a great read. I'm now wanting to share with others the information that was revealed to me. My boys are working on their Citizenship In the Nation merit badge and I want them to read to read it also. The book has a friendly voice that is comfortable to read. Nothing stiff or stuffy about this one!

The authors understanding of the Second Amendment is not sincere to historical fact. The national guard (a government force) was formed by an act of congress in 1913. Well over a century after the bill of rights and Second Amendment were ratified in 1779.

The "militia" as clearly stated within the amendment is "the people". The entire premise of the bill of rights was to protect civilian authority by having the means to protest and wage war if necessary having just won a revolution! By what logic does this author gain the view of a government force needing a "right" to bear arms? Which amounts to nothing less than an intellectually dishonest effort to read the Second Amendment out of existence. Something that the enemies of the first amendment might apply one day.

I would suggest reading "The Bill of Rights" by Akhil Reed Amar" for an accurate understanding of this "doomsday provision".

"The framers recognized that self-government required bullets as well as ballots"- A.R. Amar

The authors understanding of the Second Amendment is not sincere to historical fact. The national guard was not formed until well over a century after the bill of rights was ratified. A government force. The "militia" as clearly stated within the amendment is "the people". The entire premise of the bill of rights was to protect civilian authority from government tyranny. That is its clear intention. By what logic does this author gain the view of a government force (national guard) needing a "right" to bear arms?

This overall is a good work but flawed, like many, that seek to read the second amendment out of existence. Something that the enemies of the first amendment might apply one day.
I would suggest reading "The Bill of Rights" by Akhil Reed Amar" for an accurate understanding of this "doomsday provision".

"The framers recognized that self-government required bullets as well as ballots"- A.R. Amar

I am neither a teacher or a student but do enjoy reading for my personal knowledge. I read a book of fiction which spoke about the Constitution and decided to learn something more about it. I searched AMAZON for Constitution and one of the books selected was "The Words We Live By". I noted that it had a 5 star rating so I thought I would check it out. I read the excerpt and was hooked.
This book gives you everything. The entire text of the Constitution, plain explanations of each section, history surrounding each section, major court cases, sidebars and pictures. I read it, not like a novel but would pick it up and read then put it down and let the information settle. There is a lot there and a lot to think about. It would be a good book for classroom study or when you want something that will hold your interest other than the usual novel.

It would sound like hyperbole to say that this is a book every American should read, but it really isn't. In around 300 pages, Monk has put together an excellent book about the Constitution: informative enough so most readers will get something out of it but not so technical that it will turn those readers off.

Monk explains every sentence in the Constitution and the amendments, giving historical background and showing how the clauses and articles have been interpreted and acted on over the years. She remains objective but does not shy from controversy; when discussing such hot button issues as gun control, abortion and the death penalty, she presents both sides of the arguments, and by providing excerpts of writings by others, allows other opinions to be shown.

So why should every American read this book. Simply because this is a great introduction to the document that dictates life in the United States. An informed American is better than an ignorant one, especially in the voting booth. You may not be a full-fledged Constitutional scholar when you finish this book, but you will at least understand this document a bit better.