I believe you and every American interested in our freedoms and the Supreme Court should read this book. The authors, Robert Levy and William Mellor, pick 12 Supreme Court cases they believe were poorly decided and had detrimental consequences to our society. Each of these cases is given its own chapter and often includes another case as a "dishonorable mention" that they may also reference.

Now, we are far too deferential to the Supreme Court and even the Federal Courts. We allow them to "correct society" through rulings that are really super-legislation. This is not in the Constitution and is bad for our society. It allows the legislative branch to avoid its responsibilities, and plants undemocratic sentiments in the hearts and minds of the citizenry. But this is my point of view.

Richard Epstein gives a very nice introduction and goes over his views on the cases selected. While he mostly agrees with the authors, he offers up some disagreements and explains why. This helps the reader start his or her critical thinking as they work through the book. Yes, it is written for the general public, but it is reading you will want to read and argue with in your own mind to come to your own conclusions.

The book is in two parts. The first talks about cases that have led to the expansion of government. Chapter 1 uses Helvering v Davis (1937) and U.S. v Butler (1936) to discuss the misuse of the general welfare clause. Chapter 2 uses Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich (2005) to demonstrate the abuse of the clause about regulating interstate commerce. Chapter 3 looks at rescinding private contracts with the 1934 case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell and the 1935 case Gold Clause Cases. Chapter 4 is an important look at lawmaking by administrative agencies through the 2001 case Whiteman v. American Trucking Association, Inc.

Part two is about eroding our freedoms. Chapter 5 examines the infamous efforts at campaign finance reform and free speech. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission 2005 and Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 are explained clearly. Gun owner rights are discussed in chapter 6 using the 1939 case U.S. v. Miller. Of course we are about to get some kind of ruling from our current Supreme Court about the second amendment. Are they going to affirm our rights, deny them or punt? We don't know yet. Chapter 7 is an important look at our civil liberties versus national security using the case Korematsu v. U.S. from 1944.

Chapter 8 talks about asset forfeiture without due process using Bennis v. Michigan from 1996. Closely related is eminent domain for private use discussed in chapter 9. The authors use the rotten decision Kelo v. City of New London from 2005 and Berman v. Parker from 1954. Taking property by regulation (a real problem nowadays) uses the cases Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York from 1978 and the Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency from 2002 in Chapter 10.

Chapter 11 examines earning an honest living using U.S. v. Carolene Products from 1938 and Nebbia v. New York in 1934. Chapter 12 looks at equal protection and racial preferences using the famous Grutter v. Bollinger case from 2003 and the Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke from 1978. The afterword on "Judicial Activism and Tomorrow's Supreme Court" is very much worth reading.

They offer two postscripts. The first is on Roe V. Wade from 1973 and Bush v. Gore in 2000. They also provide a copy of the Constitution for easy reference. There is also a table of the cases referenced, notes, and a helpful index.

I enjoyed this book and recommend that you read it and wrestle with what the authors say about our government, our Constitution, and our manner of living. This is important and serious stuff that each of us needs to think about and act on.

For their next book, I hope they take on cases where the results were popular, but were still wrongly decided because the Supreme Court should have referred it back to the legislature for resolution.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI

You might also want to look at:
The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review

and

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

It had been years that I looked for some author to explain the solidity of "stare decicis"of the Common Law, and, I found it here, an honest explanation of how to understand the "dogma" of the stare decisis. Magnigicent and very honest!!!!

The Dirty Dozen was a real eye opener to the importance of selecting judges for any court, but especially the Supreme Court. Decisions made here bind the entire country to the court's philisophy for generations. A decision for the government against the intent of the constitution is a decision against the people. This book points out the fallacy of assuming the Supreme Court is always correct in its decisions and the dangers posed by judges who are not strict constitutionalists. This book should be required reading for all high school seniors before they cast their first vote.

Levy and Miller did a fantastic job of explaining legal topics in a clear and accurate manner that is accessible to non-lawyers. The premise of the "The Dirty Dozen" is that the Constitution establishes a presumption of liberty for the individual in its interpretation - a premise that is explained in a manner that is also accessible to non-lawyers. The "Dirty Dozen" are cases, primarily from the 20th Century, that most violate those principles. The authors provide some interesting background for each case, placing it in historical and legal context.

Levy and Mellor do a good job of exposing "judicial activism" as the nonce phrase it is. In modern parlance, calling a judge a "judicial activist" just means that judge wrote an opinion that the speaker disagrees with. The authors attempt to recast "judicial activism" as the exercise of judicial power in a manner divorced from the Constitution altogether. However, given the baggage that the phrase carries, it might be better to abandon it altogether.

To the extent I have any disagreements with the book, it is the idea that policy questions are the province of the legislature and not the judiciary. All laws are implementations of policy, so any question of law necessarily carries policy implications. Calling something a "policy question" is as devoid of actual content as calling someone a "judicial activist."

Nevertheless, this is a great book, and is highly recommended to anyone interested in liberty and/or constitutional issues. It's at least worth checking out from the library.

Levy and Miller did a fantastic job of explaining legal topics in a clear and accurate manner that is accessible to non-lawyers. "The Dirty Dozen" is written based on the principles that the Constitution establishes a government of limited powers, and also establishes a presumption of liberty for the individual in its interpretation. The "Dirty Dozen" are cases, primarily from the 20th Century, that most violate those principles.

Levy and Mellor do a good job of exposing "judicial activism" as the nonce phrase it is. In modern parlance, calling a judge a "judicial activist" just means that judge wrote an opinion that the speaker disagrees with. The authors attempt to recast "judicial activism" as legal opinions divorced from the Constitution; it might be better to simply abandon the term altogether as something that has no meaning at all.

To the extent I have any disagreements with the book, it is the idea that policy questions are the province of the legislature and not the judiciary. The problem is that all laws are at their core implementations of policy. Calling something a "policy question" is as devoid of actual content as calling someone a "judicial activist." As a result, one can frame any issue as a "policy question" in an attempt to keep it away from the judiciary.

Nevertheless, this is a great book, and is highly recommended to anyone interested in freedom, and in constitutional issues. It's at least worth checking out from the library.

The title is misleading. It's not about 12 cases, it's about 12 topics of constitutional abuse, each topic being carefully crafted to teach an abused section of the constitution, along with how that section of the constitution has been abused, complete with the landmark cases: what they were, how they were decided, and how the Supreme Court err'ed on each.

As such it's a wonderfully informative book teaching a broad scope of Supreme Court sanctioned constitutional abuse. I found it well written, immensely entertaining, and comprehensive in both its structure and coverage. I couldn't put the book down til reaching the end.

When reviewing Epstein's "How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution" I griped that he failed to use the "treasure trove" of case law available to support his argument. Well Levy and Mellor have found it and put it all on display! I was immediately intrigued when I saw the title. What twelve cases would they pick? The title, however, is a tad misleading. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that this book is much more than just twelve bad cases. Sure, you get twelve cases and the facts and issues involved but there's a lot more.

Liberties aren't destroyed overnight. Levy and Mellor recognize this by breaking the book up into chapters focusing on specific freedoms or clauses in the constitution rather than solely one case. They masterfully focus on one case in each area while also recognizing (through "dishonorable mentions") the precedent that lead to each of the Dirty Dozen. They also detail the repercussions and cases that followed. The effect is that they manage to take a premise, twelve distinct and often unrelated cases, and construct a comprehensive argument for the Court's responsibility in the expansion of our government and erosion of our liberties.

This book is an easy read for lawyers who are likely already aware of many of the cases. One of the many successes of this book, however, is its clear enunciation of the issues for those without a legal background. The authors spare no one, regardless of political affiliation, in their analysis of the cases. This is a perfect explanation of the damage the Supreme Court has done to our constitutional form of government in the last century.