The title should include this addendum: "An in-depth look at the American experience during the ratification of the Constitution." One can't fault the author's knowledge or research, but his ability to write a captivating book about an important subject is wanting. At a time in U.S. Constitutional history when the questionable theory of "original intent" is tossed about by conservative judicial activists to justify their judicial philosophy, the book misses the opportunity to explore and synthesize original meaning from a variety of perspectives at the time ratification was being debated. Instead, the book delves into the details of ratification, including vote apportionment (seemingly endlessly?)without providing the reader with much more than a detailed review of the general attitude of the American "deciders" and the influence of our history with England and Revolution. Worthy endeavors, but not the type of discussion that helps one understand original meaning and the validity of it as a judicial philosophy in the context of what was being attempted, why, and what the Constitution's proponents thought it meant for future "deciders." As the Supreme Court now confronts issues of our time, it would have been nice to juxtapose original meaning at the time of ratification with current popular understanding of that concept and discuss its strengths and flaws as a judicial philosophy. Alas, that will be for another book.

"Original Meaning is a good academic history book of details, but it doesn't contribute much to the understanding of original meaning on today's reality, and thus, falls short of the promise of its title.

I just finished reading this book for a class in U.S. Constitutional History and my Professor has aptly noted that this book really attempts to do two things: first, it makes this point about Originalism, demonstrating that any attempt to divine original meaning, intention, or understanding is perilous because of the diverse thought, political motivations, and interests present in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. Second, it attempts to show the difficulties of Constitution-making, and how the framers attempted to reconcile a revolutionary republican ideology with the practical problems of governance.

While the conclusion of the first objective has been criticized and debated by various reviewers (and appropriately so), I believe that this book is extremely valuable in its accomplishment of this second purpose. With dense yet incredibly readable prose, Rakove demonstrates that the Constitution was an attempt to combine republican principles with the practical experiences of the States during the Revolution and under the Articles of Confederation.

Using a few topical discussions such as a discussion of views on Representation, the Presidency, and Rights, Rakove illuminates the thinking embraced by the Framers (such as that of Locke, Montesquieu, and others) and compares and relates such principles with the real experience and concerns of the Framers (such as Madison's view that the States were becoming destructive of property rights under the Confederation). Such descriptions go a long way in describing how and why the Framers crafted the systems of government found in the Constitution and why these systems drew some criticism from both inside and outside the Convention.

While this book is (as others have pointed out) aimed more towards scholars than the layman, I highly recommend this book to any serious student of the Constitution. Prior knowledge of the events of the Revolutionary period is a must, and having read Bailyn's "Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" or Wood's "Creation of the American Republic" will be helpful.

While the Originalism issue comes up here, this book will illuminate your understanding of the Framing of the Constitution generally, and it allows the reader to make up his/her own mind about the author's thesis (or really perhaps better here called an admonition) about the Constitution's original meaning.

"A Reader" has probably not read Wittgenstein. If he has, he certainly doesn't understand him. No other explanation explains his reference to a brilliant, but completely apolitical, philosopher.

This book is a slog. That being said it does help frame the issues being debated as we await the appointment of our next Associate Justice. Specifically, it makes it difficult to suggest glibly and simplistically that one easily understands "original intent;" there were multiple original intents.

Several prior reviewers are correct, this book is not intended for the general reading public. It was aimed primarily at scholars of American history and probably also at law professors. To enjoy this book, it is really necessary to know both the basic narrative history and to already have some grasp of 18th century political theory, particularly as it was discussed in British North America. Familiarity with the works of Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood are really necessary to really grasp the issues discussed in this book. That said, this is a really insightful and well written monograph. Rakove covers the basic problems that the initiators of the constitution hoped to solve, the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the campaign over ratification, the Bill of Rights controversy, over important issues like the nature of Presidential power, and even the beginnings of the controversies over interpretation in the early Republic. His emphasis throughout is on the thinking of the Federalists and their opponents. A number of themes emerge though a basic one can be said to be that of ambiguity. A product of differing motivations, political and ideological compromise, and a highly politically charged process of ratification, it is hardly surprising that it is hard to assign unambiguous 'intentions' to many aspects of the constitution. Even when contemporary supporting literature is consulted, like The Federalist Papers, it is not an infallible guide because it contains similar ambiguities. Indeed, without some ambiguity and liberty of interpretation, it is hard to see how the constitution would have succeeded in remaining a guiding document throughout all the changes of hte last 2 centuries. There is no question that some features of the consitution are unambiguous, but they are not always things to be proud of, such as the unequivocal recognition of the legitimacy of chattel slavery. Another basic theme is that the real meaning of the constitution emerges from the collision of what is originally thought and written with the actual processes of politics and government. Rakove's careful analysis and exposition makes it clear that any form of rigid interpretation based on efforts to recover precise understandings of original meanings is likely doomed to failure, and at worst, may be a vehicle for self-deception.
I have to respond to some of the prior comments about this book. It is rather unlikely that Rakove or his publisher have minimized the role of religion in the constitutional process. The best book on the political thinking of this period of American life, Gordon Wood's The Creation of the American Republic, assigns a relatively small role for explicitly religous thought in the political theorizing that drove the constitutional movement. No one has spent more time than Wood in analyzing the primary literature, including a large volume of sermons. Second, Rakove's work is not, as one reviewer wrote, an act of interpretive nihilism. Rakove argues against simple textual analysis as the source of the final answer. Implicit in Rakove's analysis is the idea that the constitutional experience, including traditions developed over the last 2 centuries, and not just a small number of documents, are legitimate data for interpretation. As Professor Wood wrote recently, it is the institutions and traditions we've created over the past 2 centuries that really make us a viable democracy.

Rakove's work must be applauded. His chapter on Madison as the father of the Constitution is wonderful, and his phrase "The Madisonian Moment" is a clever turn on JGA Pockock's famous book.

However, there are a few flaws. First off, as others have noted, Rakove is not an especially good writer. He sometimes takes a page to say what could have been said in just a few simpler words. Second, his conclusions about "original meanings" are not entirely persuasive. He has a point insofar as he argues that finding the original meaning of the Constitution is a difficult quest, because the Constitution was a document produced by compromises. However, it does not follow from this that any meaning can be imputed to the Constitution. There are some interpretations which are simply inconsistent with any reasonable reading of the time and the Philadelphia convention.

Nonetheless, a worthwhile book, deserving of its Pulitzer, and a must-read for scholars of the Constitution.

Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution written by Jack N. Rakove is a book wonderfully appointed with documentation and source material about the issues that confronted and were in contention that spirited public debate about the Federal Convention of 1787.

I must say this, that this book was an excellent read, but I believe that the intent of the author was that this should not be your first read into how the U. S. Constitution was framed. This book delves into the time of the framers, as classic issues such as representation, rights, federalism were being debated. Federalist and Anti-Federalist issues are both in representation in this book and are treated equally. This book gives some revealing looks into the men who participated in the framing process, such as George Washington, James Wilson, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and James Madison.

These men along with others hashed out an originalism, only after debate about concerns with the constitution itself. As the author works through the ongoing process of analyzing questions and finally resolving constitutional issues, we see that this process had to resolve many issues and later a compromise was worked out, as all issues were debated, some were not resolved to a resolute finality... salvery, women's voting rights and other issues were later resolved.

The author makes a major contribution to the understanding of the Constitution even thought many may feel they know about how and why the Constitution was written, true understanding of the "Original Meanings" gives us an accessible path to the political problems embedded within our Constitution. This book is an outstandingly good read and well concieved by a talented and thoughtful historian.

Those seeking the true meaning of the Constitution should NOT overlook this book as it is thoughtful and has careful scholarly analysis.

This is not incredibly light reading but Rakove's points are important. While many would have us believe that the original meanings of the Constitution can be grasped by reviewing the text of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other important documents/statements, alas, it is not so easy. The Founders meant different things at different times and had different reasons for stating what they did at any given time. Does this mean that, because they said so many things, they actually meant nothing or anything? Of course not, however, it is not an easy task to understand them on the face of the written words - without also appreciating time, context, audience, etc. Oh well, so it goes.

Over the past 50 years, much of legal history scholarship has been devoted to undergirding the work of federal judges. What this means, at root, is that the work of many leading historians at leading universities (such as Stanford's Prof. Rakove) has been devoted to showing that constitutional self-government is essentially impossible.

After all, if we can never agree on what legal actors understood a given text to mean (and it's a simple game to "prove" that we cannot), then there is no law to bind judges, and we are at the mercy of those judges (and of the legal and constitutional scholars on whose theorizing their work heavily relies). This legal nihilism is dangerous in a constitutional republic, is in fact the same kind of thinking that resulted in fascism earlier in this century. Prof. Rakove and his ilk should know better. Shame on him, then, for giving us more of the same in this book.

There are, of course, many rewards for using a professorship at Stanford in this way, and this book yielded its author a Pulitzer Prize. Yet, it is a dangerous book, and people need to say to academics who write stuff like this that we want to keep our republic. One Wittgenstein is enough.

This is an excellent book, the information and insight contained within is excellent. However, while it is apparent the author is an extremely intelligent historian, he is just as clearly not a great writer. Thus, the reading is slow going, but if you are interested in the founding of the US Constitution and the debates and desires of the founders, this book is a must read.