What do you say about a book that puts on paper the thoughts and beliefs you hold as correct. Obviously the writer is an absolute genius. Now if we could fix the wrongs. An excellent look at the constitution that should be presented to all civics students.

The politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is a concise and straightforward critique of modern judicial activism. Gutzman also takes his readers on a quick trip through American constitutional history. The main strength of this book is that it is an easy read for those who want to learn more about the modern critique of judicial activism. Gutzman makes his arguments short and to the point, so those who already lean towards the rule of law can crank right through it.

The main weakness of this book is that its arguments are not well developed enough to convince those who want to defend judicial activism. Those who favor judicial activism might find Gutzman's arguments inadequate. You can only win over your opponents with detailed and thorough arguments and evidence. Consequently, this book is better for rallying the troops than for defeating the enemy.

American developed into a great nation largely because it was founded on the basis of rule of law and judicial restraint. Those who would break down the separation of powers with judicial activism (i.e. legislating from the bench) pose a serious threat to our future. The politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution makes a small contribution to the effort to preserve the rule of law. But given the importance of the rule of law even a small contribution to its preservation is important.

Read the The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution for fun and self-assurance. To take the fight over the Constitution to the enemy read Takings by Richard Epstein, The Mystery of Capital by Hernando De Soto, The Calculus of Consent by James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, and The Constitution of Liberty by FA Hayek.

I recommend this for, if nothing else, the depth of the history surrounding the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It could have gone deeper, but then it would have been a different book - and it goes deeper than most I've seen.

As the book progresses through various attacks on the Constitution through history, the focus is almost entirely upon the Supreme Court. Not a bad target, all in all, but perhaps the title could have changed to reflect the actual focus in the writing. I'd expected a more broad-based examination of violations of the Constitution from all of the culprits.

After the first half of the book, the writer loses his distance from the material, becoming more passionate about the violations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, which actually weakens his writing - he'd have been better if he'd been able to maintain the factual, dispassionate presentation of the earlier material. At the end, his personal bias is remarkably plain, and it lost this reader a bit.

The P.I.G. features - factoids appearing frequently in the margins, under headings such as "A Book You're Not Supposed to Read", which recommends further reading relevant to the subject at hand, and "Legal Latinisms", which explains Latin phrases commonly used in law, are generally good - the damning quotes are too often given without context, and the half-page biographies could stand some bibliography notes, - but all in all, they're nicely used.

Don't mistake my criticism here - I strongly recommend this book, and will doubtless loan it to as many of my friends as I can. There are flaws, so this could have been better - but so far, nobody's done better with this material yet - not that I've seen, anyway.

First of all, I must qualify my review by saying that I encourage everyone interested in learning exactly how the Constitution has been effectively nullified over the course of the past 200+ years to purchase this book. It is an invaluable resource to any paleoconservative, libertarian, constitutionalist, minarchist, or even open-minded anti-state liberal. That said, here is my review:

Like many "paleolibertarian" books, the P.I.G. to the Constitution is exhilarating, but also frustrating. There really is no debate -- the author makes the clear case that the original meaning and intent of the Constitution is clearly evident in the writings of the founders and, more importantly, the ratifiers of the Constitution. He shows the patently outrageous decisions by the Court -- going back further than the New Deal, further than the Progressive Era or even the War to Prevent Southern Independence -- that have usurped the role of the Constitution and effectively turned the formerly sovereign states of America into an electoral/judicial dictatorship. This is fairly "politically incorrect" even to "conservatives" -- who are among the most government-worshiping, nationalist, "democracy"-loving statists in America today. In fact, the author really pushes the envelope by casting the sacred cows of Lincoln and (gasp!) Washington in a bad light (correctly, I might add).

So why do I give this book only three stars? Because the author is either intellectually dishonest or, as I suspect, a shill for his pro-fascist publisher. While he correctly strikes down "politically correct" decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, the non-ratification and misapplication of the 14th amendment, and the inventions of "penumbras" which would only apply to the federal government (not the states!) if they existed in the first place, he is completely silent on the wholly invented "presidential war powers," unconstitutional aggregation of power into the executive branch, and more recent abominations like the Patriot Act. If a Republican did it post-Civil War, it didn't happen, according to the author, or if it did, it was constitutional. This selective application of the law is no different from what he (correctly) accuses the Supreme Court of doing.

Furthermore, the title of this book is misleading. It deals little with the Constitution itself, and instead, is about "constitutional law" -- which the author himself admits and laments has little or nothing to do with the Constitution. This actually made the book more worthwhile for me, but the nonstop judge and lawyer bashing would have been well complemented with a little more executive-branch bashing sprinkled on top, including the truth about Republican administrations which, at least since the New Deal, have done far more to destroy liberty than their (thankfully ineffective) Democratic counterparts.

Like many "paleolibertarian" books, the P.I.G. to the Constitution is exhilarating, but also frustrating. There really is no debate -- the author makes the clear case that the original meaning and intent of the Constitution is clearly evident in the writings of the founders and, more importantly, the ratifiers of the Constitution. He shows the patently outrageous decisions by the Court -- going back further than the New Deal, further than the Progressive Era or even the War to Prevent Southern Independence -- that have usurped the role of the Constitution and effectively turned the formerly sovereign states of America into an electoral/judicial dictatorship. This is fairly "politically incorrect" even to "conservatives" -- who are among the most government-worshiping, nationalist, "democracy"-loving statists in America today. In fact, the author really pushes the envelope by casting the sacred cows of Lincoln and (gasp!) Washington in a bad light (correctly, I might add).

So why do I give this book only three stars? Because the author is either intellectually dishonest or, as I suspect, a shill for his pro-fascist publisher. While he correctly strikes down "politically correct" decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, the non-ratification and misapplication of the 14th amendment, and the inventions of "penumbras" which would only apply to the federal government (not the states!) if they existed in the first place, he is completely silent on the wholly invented "presidential war powers," unconstitutional aggregation of power into the executive branch, and more recent abominations like the Patriot Act. If a Republican did it post-Civil War, it didn't happen, according to the author, or if it did, it was constitutional. This selective application of the law is no different from what he (correctly) accuses the Supreme Court of doing.

Furthermore, the title of this book is misleading. It deals little with the Constitution itself, and instead, is about "constitutional law" -- which the author himself admits and laments has little or nothing to do with the Constitution. This actually made the book more worthwhile for me, but the nonstop judge and lawyer bashing would have been well complemented with a little more executive-branch bashing sprinkled on top, including (gasp!) the truth about Republican administrations which, at least since the New Deal, have done far more to destroy liberty than their (thankfully ineffective) Democratic counterparts.

There is so much mis-information about the Constitution. Most people have never read it and there is so much apocriphal information that is in the news that it is frightening. This book can be a real eye-opener for those with no knowledge of the founding of this country.

Fantastic book! This writer really knows his stuff. Although I had read the Constitution before, and was well versed in American History, this book cuts through the claptrap that most history books and professors are wont to spin. More people need to know what the basis of our laws really are. That way, they can judge for themselves if the current Supreme Court decisions are "just" or just more alteration of the original intent of the Constitution.

Simply put - GET IT! READ IT! Then READ IT AGAIN AND AGAIN! Maybe after enough people understand what this country is supposed to be (and a corporation is NOT it, as in 'the USA Incorp. which we've become) maybe then we can elect a decent president. Until then, it appears we'll just keep electing 'horse apples'.

I can't give enough praise to this book for exposing the sham of "constitutional law" (the supposed "interpretation" of the Constitution by Supreme Court justices). Very enlightening and refreshing, this book should be a required reading or a prerequisite for undergrad and law students before they are subjected to "con law" classes and the case method. I could go on and on with praise, but I'll give a few nitpicks and critiques:

Regarding the case of U.S. v. Butler (1936), Gutzman claims that it would be difficult to find a another court decision in the 20th century with a more accurate interpretation of the Constitution. I think this is disconcerting. Yes, the court in this case struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act because it was not an "expressly granted" power of Congress, but the court also, in the opinion, greatly expanded the General Welfare Clause beyond it's original understanding by assigning it a Hamiltonian reading. The court pretty much said that even though Congress has limited and "expressly granted" powers, it can nonetheless tax and spend in whatever area it sees fit for the "general welfare." This is a bizarre contradiction, and I hope Gutzman recognized this. My guess is that Gutzman's praise for the court's decision is based on the court's acknowledgement of Congress's "expressly granted" powers and then simply declaring the A.A.A. not one of them. But if this case is the most loyal to original understanding in the 20th century, we're definately in trouble!

My other (minor) nitpicks have to do with Gutzman's lack of elaboration in a few subjects and court cases:

Gutzman only implies that the case of Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) was wrongly decided, and kind of leaves the reader wondering how an originalist court would have decided the case. Maybe a correct decision would have been the following: "Congress has no expressly delegated power to regulate the local labor of a state. However, it can regulate (and thus completely ban) the interstate commerce of products manufactured by child labor and create a large disincentive of its use." I can only guess that this is a correct reading.

In the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) Gutzman only gives the facts of the case and its ruling. The reader is left wanting more; wanting to know whether a noncitizen is covered by the 14th Amendment; wanting to know whether the local ordinance in the case is justiciable by the court due to a lack of "state action."

Gutzman only makes a brief explanation of "substantive due process." He of course goes on in great detail showing how it was (and is) used in economic and social questions by the court as a way to import their own biased views of "fundamental rights." But I wish he had gone further and actually shown why this type of due process was never intended by the framers and ratifiers of the 5th and 14th Amendments by showing evidence in their ratification debates.

In explaining Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), Gutzman makes a point that the 14th Amendment covered only race. However, refering to this case, Raoul Berger noted that even the 14th Amendment didn't bar racial discrimination with regard to juries. GOVERNMENT BY JUDICIARY Gutzman never mentions this. I'm sure Gutzman's purpose for using this case, though, is for the sake of its point on the 14th Amendment and race.

I wish Gutzman would have reviewed other cases as well, such as: The Daniel Ball, Reynolds v. Sims, "Curtiss-Wright", Missouri v. Holland, Goldwater v. Carter, and U.S. v. Pink. I also wish Gutzman would have mentioned the "Blaine Amendment" (and its failure) and cases like U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) as evidence that incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never contemplated by the people or the court immediately after the 14th Amendment.

These nitpicks are minor. I guess my main issue with this book is that I was left wanting more, it's that good! I'm sure the author had a limited amount of words or pages to work with. However, this book is a fun read. Highly recommended! You'll never think of the Constitution the same way again!

I can't give enough praise to this book for exposing the sham of "constitutional law" (the supposed "interpretation" of the Constitution by Supreme Court justices). Very enlightening and refreshing, this book should be a required reading or a prerequisite for undergrad and law students before they are subjected to "con law" classes and the case method. I could go on and on with praise, but I'll give a few nitpicks and critiques:

Regarding the case of U.S. v. Butler (1936), Gutzman claims that it would be difficult to find a another court decision in the 20th century with a more accurate interpretation of the Constitution. I think this is disconcerting. Yes, the court in this case struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act because it was not an "expressly granted" power of Congress, but the court also, in the opinion, greatly expanded the General Welfare Clause beyond it's original understanding by assigning it a Hamiltonian reading. The court pretty much said that even though Congress has limited and "expressly granted" powers, it can nonetheless tax and spend in whatever area it sees fit for the "general welfare." This is a bizarre contradiction, and I hope Gutzman recognized this. My guess is that Gutzman's praise for the court's decision is based on the court's acknowledgement of Congress's "expressly granted" powers and then simply declaring the A.A.A. not one of them. But if this case is the most loyal to original understanding in the 20th century, we're definately in trouble!

My other (minor) nitpicks have to do with Gutzman's lack of elaboration in a few subjects and court cases:

Gutzman only implies that the case of Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) was wrongly decided, and kind of leaves the reader wondering how an originalist court would have decided the case. Maybe a correct decision would have been the following: "Congress has no expressly delegated power to regulate the local labor of a state. However, it can regulate (and thus completely ban) the interstate commerce of products manufactured by child labor and create a large disincentive of its use." I can only guess that this is a correct reading.

In the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) Gutzman only gives the facts of the case and its ruling. The reader is left wanting more; wanting to know whether a noncitizen is covered by the 14th Amendment; wanting to know whether the local ordinance in the case is justiciable by the court due to a lack of "state action."

Gutzman only makes a brief explanation of "substantive due process." He of course goes on in great detail showing how it was (and is) used in economic and social questions by the court as a way to import their own biased views of "fundamental rights." But I wish he had gone further and actually shown why this type of due process was never intended by the framers and ratifiers of the 5th and 14th Amendments by showing evidence in their ratification debates.

In explaining Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), Gutzman makes a point that the 14th Amendment covered only race. However, this case was criticized by Raoul Berger because even the 14th Amendment didn't bar racial discrimination with regard to juries, Gutzman never mentions this. I'm sure Gutzman's purpose for using this case, though, is for the sake of its point on the 14th Amendment and race.

I wish Gutzman would have reviewed other cases as well, such as: The Daniel Ball, Reynolds v. Sims, "Curtiss-Wright", Missouri v. Holland, Goldwater v. Carter, and U.S. v. Pink. I also wish Gutzman would have mentioned the "Blaine Amendment" (and its failure) and cases like U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) as evidence that incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never contemplated by the people or the court immediately after the 14th Amendment.

These nitpicks are minor. I'm sure the author had a limited amount of words or pages to work with. However, this book is a fun read. Highly recommended! You'll never think of the Constitution the same way again!

I can't give enough praise to this book for exposing the sham of "constitutional law" (the supposed "interpretation" of the Constitution by Supreme Court justices). Very enlightening and refreshing, this book should be a required reading or a prerequisite for undergrad and law students before they are subjected to "con law" classes and the case method. I could go on and on with praise, but I'll give a few nitpicks and critiques:

Regarding the case of U.S. v. Butler (1936), Gutzman claims that it would be difficult to find a another court decision in the 20th century with a more accurate interpretation of the Constitution. I think this is disconcerting. Yes, the court in this case struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act because it was not an "expressly granted" power of Congress, but the court also, in the opinion, greatly expanded the General Welfare Clause beyond it's original understanding by assigning it a Hamiltonian reading. The court pretty much said that even though Congress has limited and "expressly granted" powers, it can nonetheless tax and spend in whatever area it sees fit for the "general welfare." This is a bizarre contradiction, and I hope Gutzman recognized this. My guess is that Gutzman's praise for the court's decision is based on the court's acknowledgement of Congress's "expressly granted" powers and simply declaring the A.A.A. as not one of them. If this case is the most loyal to original understanding in the 20th century we're definately in trouble!

My other (minor) nitpicks have to do with Gutzman's lack of elaboration in a few subjects and court cases:

Gutzman only implies that the case of Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) was wrongly decided, and kind of leaves the reader wondering what an originalist court would have decided. Maybe a correct decision would have been the following: "while Congress has no power to regulate local labor, it can nonetheless greatly limit the interstate commerce of products manufactured by child labor and create a large disincentive of its use." I can only guess that this is a correct reading.

In the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) Gutzman only gives the facts of the case and its ruling. The reader is left wanting more; wanting to know whether a noncitizen is covered by the 14th Amendment; wanting to know whether the local ordinance in the case is justiciable by the court due to a lack of "state action."

Gutzman only makes a brief explanation of "substantive due process." He of course goes on in great detail showing how it was (and is) used in economic and social questions by the court as a way to import their own biased views of "fundamental rights." But I wish he had gone further and actually shown why this type of due process was never intended by the framers and ratifiers of the 5th and 14th Amendments by showing evidence in their ratification debates.

In explaining Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), Gutzman makes a point that the 14th Amendment covered only race. However, this case was criticized by Raoul Berger because even the 14th Amendment didn't bar racial discrimination with regard to juries. I'm sure Gutzman's purpose for using this case, though, is for the sake of its point on the 14th Amendment and race.

I wish Gutzman would have reviewed other cases as well, such as: The Daniel Ball, Reynolds v. Sims, "Curtiss-Wright", Missouri v. Holland, Goldwater v. Carter, and U.S. v. Pink. I also wish Gutzman would have mentioned the "Blaine Amendment" and cases like U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) as evidence that incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never contemplated by the people or the court immediately after the 14th Amendment.

These nitpicks are minor. I'm sure the author had a limited amount of words or pages to work with. However, this book is a fun read. Highly recommended!

I read "The politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" anticipating a description of the history of the constitution (which I got) and a time line showing how the United States has moved away from its constitutional roots (I only got part of this).

Professor Gutzman starts off with an excellent background describing the history of the Constitution, how it came about, what its authors 'intended' it to mean, and where it was supposed to lead the country. The good professor does an excellent job in this regard - A+.

Beginning in chapter 4, however, the author begins describing the usurpations that have occurred within the judicial branch of the federal government. I agree with him 100% in this regard - the federal judiciary is out of control. My problem here was that the rest of the book was spent on the judiciary (chapters 4 through 12). Is an average reader to believe that the only way in which the Constitution has been ignored is through the usurpations of the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court? I would hope not. Congress has, in many ways, failed to exercise powers appropriate to that body and has, in other ways, transferred authority unconstitutionally to the executive branch.

The executive branch itself could be the beginning of an entirely separate book discussing a multitude of violations surrounding the constitution. Why is it, then, that this volume spends the majority of its time hacking away at the supreme court and the federal judicial system? That's only one part of the larger problem. In this regard, the book is incomplete.

Finally, after reading 220 pages, I read a suggestion of the author to curb the excesses of the federal judiciary: A constitutional council of the fifty states. Hmmm, interesting, but where in the constitution of the United States is the authority found for the creation of such a council? Oh, surprise, it isn't there! (No, it isn't in the constitution of the states either). I'm not sure that the 'solution' to one violation of the constitution is to suggest another.

Here are some suggestions I would make:

- Congress could use the power of impeachment to remove Supreme Court justices (and other federal judges) who violate their oaths to uphold the constitution.

- Congress could exercise its Article III power to prevent the federal judiciary from hearing cases in connection with certain subjects (abortion, gay marriage, etc.).

- Finally, citizens, who should know and understand the constitution, should be the ones to vote their congressmen and senators out of office when they fail to uphold the constitution as it should be.

There is no need to suggest unconstitutional solutions to unconstitutional problems in the government.

Professor Gutzman's final product here is an amazing work distilled from a huge amount of historical material.

I arrived at my understanding of the US Constitution some time after first taking conventional "Constitutional Law" in law school. After that course, where where case law summaries were virtually just spat out, I pursued the study of the subject under a professor known to be "extremely rigorous." (I was warned by the registrar at one point when I went to register.) Unconcerned, I jumped into what would be the first of several courses where I would be given huge amounts of historical material along with case law and told to "learn to wrestle" with the issues. A year and a half later, I emerged with a Constitutional view formed by reading history, reading the text of the Constitution, reading early case law, and then spending hours trying to fit the pieces together and learn the stances taken by various sides. I wished that I could share that experience with everyone, but alas, modern "Constitutional Law" classes will not get you there.

To my shock and pleasant surprise, this book is an excellent product of extensive historical digging as well as reading of case law. Gutzman is brave, but justified in his criticism of Justice Marshall, and hits most of the main points where "Constitutional Law scholarship" has forked away from actually studying the Constitution.

The topics are covered in summary, which is good to remember when you're reading it; I'm sure the author could expand individual topics to fill volumes. Use this as a launching pad to dig into some of these issues. You'll be surprised what you'll find.

Bravo to Gutzman; fine work. I wish every law student would read this book.

This is one of those books that should be required reading in Middle or High School. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to grasp the founding father's intentions and - for lack of a better word - games that they played to shape the the Constitution as they saw fit. And if the Constitution didn't meet their needs and wants, how they would use the Judicial System - expecially the Supreme Court - to shape the perception of what the Constitution "really means".

This book will help explain that from the very beginning, people have worked to make the Constitution mean what they want, rather than accept what it was supposed to mean: Limited Federal Government and Massive States Rights.

Dr. Gutzman's book shares space on my shelf with my Heritage Guide to the Constitution; this is a must have book for anyone concerned with original intent, the judiciary, or even simply traditional America.

I'd remark that if the book challenges you, don't lash out and assume that the indoctrination you were subjected to was correct. Keep an open mind, use other resources to check what you're reading, and prepare yourself for the inevitable: you're going to realize that what you think you know about the Constitution is probably off from reality. I especially enjoyed his commentary on the 14th Amendment - the more you learn about it the more screwed up you're apt to consider the Judiciary.

Bottom line: well-written and logical resource with few peers with respect to its importance in understanding the Constitution and the Judiciary.

The book would have had more impact and credibility if the author had stated facts without his bias so blantantly obvious. There are some valid points and good information in the book to consider, but many statements are so cynical and prejudiced that it takes away from the book. It was worth the money and time I spent reading it, but I shudder to think what the United States would be if this author was in control.

Despite its satirical title, Kevin Gutzman's guide to our Constitution is a serious study of both "original intent" and the antecedents of our constitutional republic. Not written in lawyers' "legalese", but in a pithy, yet informative style, it is truly a pleasure to read. Professor Gutzman's book accurately documents how "revisionist" federal judges and "progressive" legislators have systematically distorted our most precious founding document.
For those who have ever wondered what "constitutional originalists" actually believe, The Politically Incorrect Guide To The Constitution will provide all the answers. Likewise, if you are citizen-voter interested in how changes in legal interpretation and political ideology have impacted American history, then this may also be the source for which you have been searching. Its publication is most timely, because these are certainly issues that will be at the forefront of debate in Election 2008.

Robert W. Faubel, M.A.
Former Fellow,
James Madison Foundation

There's not a lot about the Constitution, per se, in "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution." Most everyone knows the structural stuff -- three branches, elections in November, blah blah -- and the rest ... well, the rest hardly matters anymore.

Thomas Woods has already produced an excellent "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History," but "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" necessarily includes a good deal of history to explain why we've reached that point. The fundamental point of Kevin Gutzman's outstanding book is that "constitutional law" as understood and taught in the US has little if anything to do with the document adopted on September 17, 1787, and ratified by the several states over the next three years. Instead, "constitutional law" is the body of decisions and "interpretations" issued by the Supreme Court and lower courts. It's this idea of "law," and the impact it has had on the republic the founders created, that is the real object of Gutzman's study.

The resulting book is spirited, opinionated, and remarkably informative. Out of more than two centuries of jurisprudence, the author has isolated some important themes and trends. Long after the Federalist Party was dead and buried, John Marshall and his intellectual heirs have succeeded in achieving the arch-Federalist goal, Gutzman argues, of turning a confederation of sovereign states into a centralized nation, and replacing "the authority of elected state governments with the authority of a few lawyers, appointed by a president to positions of lifetime tenure without any check on their power" (p. 86).

Along the way, he introduces us to some key personalities and calls out some important suggested reading. Most importantly, he gives us chapter-and-verse examples of how courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have twisted, distorted, "interpreted," or ignored the clear language of the Constitution to gild judges' own opinions with the luster of "constitutional law."

By making these arguments and charting these trends, Gutzman is taking on generations of America's legal establishment, as well as the received wisdom of most citizens that the word of the federal Supreme Court is final and that's just the way it's supposed to be. A reader who takes Gutzman's work seriously (and she should), may well end up both outraged and convinced that achieving any fundamental change would be an exceptionally Sisyphean task. Certainly it should make her sympathetic to the great American abolitionist and anarchist philosopher Lysander Spooner, who wrote way back in 1870 that "whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

Today is Constitution Day. Take a moment to remember what was meant to be, and what could have been.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is exelent. It gave me a different way to look at a number of court cases I was already familiar with and helped put them in a historical and ideological context. It could use a little more detail on cases and consequences.

Books like this will help American's learn the politically incorrect truth about various subjects without all the revisionist history and skewed garbage from the left. I bought this copy for a gift to a family member in law school. HIGHLY RECOMMEND!!!!

This book is an eye-opener on the impact of the Supreme Court on the history of this country. The book is written with humor and is easy to read. If you think our constitution sets the parameters for our laws, guess again! I liked this well-documented book.

I am about to order this book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," based on its description and the reviews and comments by several people here. I want to urge you people to take the time also to read any of the books by Garry Wills, professor of American history at Northwestern University. In particular I recommend "A Necessary Evil," likewise an exploration of this nation's earliest days and the attitude of mistrust of government that has become an entrenched attitude in our country. Also, "Explaining America: The Federalist."

Professor Gutzman has written a very insightful book and I'm inclined to agree with most of his observations but it might have been well to discuss some of the problems that might have arisen had the constitution not been violated. Specifically, he makes a strong argument (with which, in fact, I agree) that the South had every right to secede from the union but he ignores the fact that out of the unconstitutional and misnamed Civil War that folowed, emerged the greatest nation in the history of the world. Granted it was no longer a federation as the framers intended but had we not become the magnificent nation that we did what would have happened in the 20th century? Would we now all be speaking German, or Russian, or perhaps even Japanese? Would free market capitalism have been replaced by a fascist state run economy or perhaps, even worse, incentive stifling communism? While I do decry the fact that the constitution has been repeatedly violated, a question that should be explored is "was it sustainable without modification in the first place?"

Unfortunately the book is marred by Professor Gutzman's reference to the 1860 presidential candidacy of James Buchanan. Most regular readers of U.S. history are aware that James Buchanan was not a candidate in 1860 and had made that fact clear well in advance of the conventions that did select the candidates. Gutzman, as a professor of American History at Connecticut State University, certainly should have known better.

In spite of these drawbacks the book is an excellent and insightful read and well worth a spot on your library shelf.

After the first three chapter, it was all the Judiciary. I do agree that the Judiciary is most of the problem but not all of it.

How to fix the problems is nowhere to be found until the last chapter (no chapter number) and that was only 3 pages of ambiguous suggestions.

More talk about solutions to the problems is needed.

Note: This review was deleted and reentered with a lower score due to a couple of responses from people who had a vested interest in the series. I have bought one other book in the series and was going to buy a third, but that has changed.

After the first three chapter, it was all the Judiciary. I do agree that the Judiciary is most of the problem but not all of it.

How to fix the problems is nowhere to be found until the last chapter (no chapter number) and that was only 3 pages of ambiguous suggestions.

More talk about solutions to the problems is needed.

The fact that Gutzman talks about President Buchanan not having a chance of being re-elected in 1860 stunned me since Buchanan made it clear from the beginning that he would serve only one term. Such an error on such a basic fact calls into question what else he may have gotten wrong.

The book is a good introduction on the juduciary running amuck but I wouldn't want to rely on it for a comprehensive understanding of what has happened to the Constitution.

I have taken classes in Constitutional Law as an undergraduate and now in law school, and they don't teach us any of this! While I was somewhat familiar with some of this book's inconvenient truths regarding the (d)evolution of our Constitution, never have I seen them put together in such a succinct way. By cataloging the changes in Constitutional doctrine in the context of historical trends, Mr. Gutzman does a masterful job of explaining how we got the Constitution we have today. The context he provides for (in)famous Court decisions over the years gives the reader a new perspective on the "cornerstone cases" of American Constitutional Law. This should be mandatory reading for any law student or citizen who wants a different explanation from that promulgated by "mainstream" Constitutional theorists and college professors.

What a treat this book is to read, even if you have to give up some cherished myths. You'll never see James Madison in the same light again, wishy-washy as he was. You'll understand the vital importance of the states as founders of the federal government and without peer in their own spheres. Dr. Gutzman interrogates the 14th Amendment and finds it did not mandate Brown v. Board of Education or anything like unto it.

He also illustrates how quickly the rot set in after the Constitution's ratification--just a few years, in fact. And while I'd read criticism of John Marshall's expansionist view of the great compact before, none of it compares to Dr. Gutzman's readable and clear demolition job. This book is enlightening in just about every field of thought that concerns the Constitution and its overthrow by the various courts.

There is a quibble to be made about how the book portrays Chief Justice Taney's Dred Scott decision. I cannot but see that Taney was correct about slavery, the Constitution, and the founders. That Amendments 13-15 were passed clearly points out that there was a perceived need to rectify the Constitution in regard to slavery. Perhaps Taney should have kept his mouth shut, but it looks like he spoke truth.

I also can't understand why so many conservatives have a problem with privacy as a right. Granted, privacy was absurdly warped into a ground for justifying abortion, but the abuse of a right doesn't mean that right doesn't exist. Dr. Gutzman claims the right to privacy is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, but in this I think he's wrong. The 9th Amendment states that the rights mentioned in the Constitution do not exhaust the rights of the people, and surely being left alone, of not being an object the government can spy on without cause, is one of the greatest liberties we could enjoy.

These flaws don't overshadow this book's enormous power to smash myths and set things right. It's a combination textbook, reference work, and just plain enjoyable reading. Though not a long book, it points the reader in the right directions both in its own right, and in areas of further study that it unfolds.

What a treat this book is to read, even if you have to give up some cherished myths. You'll never see James Madison in the same light again, wishy-washy as he was. You'll understand the vital importance of the states as founders of the federal government and without peer in their own spheres. Dr. Gutzman interrogates the 14th Amendment and finds it did not mandate Brown v. Board of Education or anything like unto it.

He also illustrates how quickly the rot set in after the Constitution's ratification--just a few years, in fact. And while I'd read criticism of John Marshall's expansionist view of the great compact before, none of it compares to Dr. Gutzman's readable and clear demolition job. This book is enlightening in just about every field of thought that concerns the Constitution and its overthrow by the various courts.

There is a quibble to be made about how the book portrays Chief Justice Taney's Dred Scott decision. I cannot but see that Taney was correct about slavery, the Constitution, and the founders. That Amendments 13-15 were passed clearly points out that there was a perceived need to rectify the Constitution in regard to slavery. Perhaps Taney should have kept his mouth shut, but it looks like he spoke truth.

I also can't understand why so many conservatives have a problem with privacy as a right. Granted, this right was absurdly warped into a ground for justifying abortion, but the abuse of a right doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. Dr. Gutzman claims the right is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, but in this I think he's wrong. The 9th Amendment states that the rights mentioned in the Constitution do not exhaust the rights of the people, and surely being left alone, of not being an object the government can spy on without cause, is one of the greatest rights we could enjoy.

These flaws don't overshadow this book's enormous power to smash myths and set things right. It's a combination textbook, reference work, and just plain enjoyable reading. Though not a long book, it points the reader in the right directions both in its own right, and in areas of further study that it unfolds.

Do you really know your history? Is it finally time to understand the Constitution? I highly recommend this as balance to other history books.

History as it should be taught! We live in a profoundly different time and the Constitution's original intent has been eroded and dismantled over time. No where else can you find the truths expressed in this book.

~Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution~ is an excellent read, which invigorates American constitutional scholarship. I literally stayed up all night to read the infamous Guide by Kevin Gutzman which just came out this past June 2007. His credentials are impressive. Kevin received his Masters of Public Affairs from the University of Texas, along with a Juris Doctorate from the University of Texas School of Law, and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Virginia. A Texas Law professor and conservative, strict constructionist Lino Graglia has endorsed Kevin's book. I have to say I found it worthwhile reading. The author sent me his resume before it went to print. Needless to say, Kevin has quite an extensive knowledge of constitutional history and law, and an expertise on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. His journal articles are worth researching as well. I learned a few small things, but generally, found it to be a confirmation of my long cherished beliefs about the American founding.

His perspective is very much like mine, and he informed me beforehand, he embraces the sentiments of John Taylor of Caroline, presumably expressed in his New Views on the Constitution. One thing that Kevin does that is hard-hitting and accurate is stress the importance of utilizing the proceedings of the State Ratifying Conventions to ascertain original intent. The problem I have with modern constitutional historiography is that it does not accurately portray the purpose of the Convention or its power and authority. The ambiguous special pleadings for ratification known as the Federalist Papers while are an overvalued window into original intent. The fact that the people of the several states never ratified Hamilton's opinions, and the fact that Hamilton had offered a plan for complete consolidation at Philadelphia only to leave that Convention early also discounts the value of his special pleading for adoption of the Constitution as the be-all and end-all summation of original intent. In Federalist #40, Madison accurately stated that the Philadelphia Convention had no authority but to draft a Constitution and its powers were "merely advisory and recommendatory." Madison also disclaimed the value of his notes and contended that we should look for original intent not in the deliberations and proceedings of the convention to draft the Constitution, but in the text itself and in the proceedings of the state ratifying conventions. Madison observed, "...the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the authority which it possesses." In point of emphasis, "all the authority which it possesses." Gutzman contends in earnest for state sovereignty, and documents that there are "lights towards true construction," of the Constitution as John Taylor has suggested. "Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power," observed Taylor, "and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could have not reserved any rights by articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation. But the union possesses no innate sovereignty, like the states; it was not self-constituted; it is conventional, and of course subordinate to the sovereignties by which it was formed."

As Thomas E. Woods, Jr. notes: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is not another of the toothless and forgettable laments about the death of the Constitution at the hands of activist judges that we read from time to time from the right-wing pundit class, though of course Gutzman decries both of these things. This is a far more sweeping, much more fundamentally devastating indictment of the Supreme Court, of the "legal training" that raises up ever more people to perpetuate its record of dishonesty and usurpation, and of the American regime at large - which rests on the legal fictions Gutzman shreds in his book."

The official publisher's blurb from Regnery notes that the book:

* explains how the Constitution was understood by the founders who wrote it and the people who ratified it

* follows the Supreme Court as it uses the fig leaf of the Constitution to cover its naked usurpation of the rights and powers the Constitution explicitly reserves to the states and to the people

* shows how we slid from the Constitution's republican federal government, with its very limited powers, to an unrepublican "judgeocracy" with limitless powers

* reveals how huge swaths of American law and society were remade in the wake of Supreme Court rulings

* reveals how the Fourteenth Amendment has been twisted to use the Bill of Rights as a check on state power instead of on federal power, as originally intended

* exposes the radical inconsistency between "constitutional law" and the rule of law

* contends that the judges who receive the most attention in history books are celebrated for acting against the Constitution rather than for it

The book is basically a most profound and erudite exposition of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence since its impetus. In fact, Madison pledged during the ratification debates that the federal government try and simply get along without federal trial courts, allowing decisions to be adjudicated in state courts. The Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 changed that reality, but parts of it were later rescinded shortly thereafter for usurping the jurisdiction of the states. Though, the U.S. Supreme Court actually took initiative to declare portions of the Act unconstitutional. Kevin documents how the framers never intended the federal judiciary to be what it is today. In fact, their efforts to usurp constitutional authority from the states was a gradual dialectical process that happened over time. As Thomas Jefferson once lamented, "The natural progress of things is for tyranny to gain ground, and government to yield.

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
--Charles Evan Hughes, 1907, former chief justice

"What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court, that enables them to discern a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional? ... Day by day, case by case, this court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize."
--Justice Antonin Scalia

Hughes' quote above captures the arrogance of the imperialists on the federal judiciary, which really came to bloom in the twentieth-century under the auspices of the New Deal Court following FDR's court-stacking scheme coupled with the subsequent retirement of conservative justices. The fifth chapter, "The Imperial Judiciary: It Started with John Marshall," is a particularly interesting look at the work of John Marshall who shaped American constitutional law and made the U.S. Supreme Court a center of power. Marshall was the fourth Chief Justice of the United States, serving from February 4, 1801 until his death in 1835. Marshall invoked judicial review in a power grab in the famous Marbury v. Madison decision, but one could argue that judicial review was implicit in the nature of a federal system granted. The problem was that there was no federal common law, and that federal courts were courts of limited jurisdiction. As Senator Thomas Benton declard, "That Court is called Supreme; but this character of supremacy, which the Federal Constitution bestows upon it, has reference to interior courts--the District and Circuit--and not to the States of this Union." Under the American federal system, commensurate with original intent, we have two essential court systems: courts of general jurisdiction (e.g. the states) and courts of limited jurisdiction (e.g. federal courts.) In the course of time, however, this would soon changed, not by constitutional right, however, but by federal usurpation of the compact. During the ratification debates at the Virginia Convention of 1788, George Mason presciently claimed that one day the U.S. Supreme Court would swallow up the jurisdiction of the states. Mason was prophetic in that regard. By the twentieth-century, much of what law students and jurists learn in constitutional law classes might as well be called unconstitutional law.

Kevin captures another bittersweet reality in American constitutional history. The battle against Big Government, and the battle for constitutionally-limited government has been waged since the formative years of the American Republic. Going back to the good ole days in history, we only discover that the impulse for centralization, aggrandizement of political power, and constitutional usurpation has been with us since the commencement of the Republic. Though, Reconstruction and the New Deal certainly marked solid gains for the advocates of unfettered national power. We the People must be determined to renew and restore constitutionally-limited government, and it requires a firm grasp of our constitutional heritage to effectuate its renewal.

Well, this book was preaching to the choir with me. I was familiar with much of the findings already, but it is reassuring to see others see things the way I do. We are not the crazy and radical ones, as we advocate constitutionally-limited government and restoring the Anglo-American constitutional tradition to its former prominence. Those who stand for Big Government are the radicals, however, well entrenched their political class might be in Washington, D.C. I highly recommend it for students of jurisprudence and American history. It's very straightforward, relatively easy-to-read.

~Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution~ is an excellent read, which invigorates American constitutional scholarship. I literally stayed up all night to read the infamous Guide by Kevin Gutzman which just came out this past June 2007. His credentials are impressive. Kevin received his Masters of Public Affairs from the University of Texas, along with a Juris Doctorate from the University of Texas School of Law, and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Virginia. A Texas Law professor and conservative, strict constructionist Lino Graglia has endorsed Kevin's book. I have to say I found it worthwhile reading. The author sent me his resume before it went to print. Needless to say, Kevin has quite an extensive knowledge of constitutional history and law, and an expertise on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. His journal articles are worth researching as well. I learned a few small things, but generally, found it to be a confirmation of my long cherished beliefs about the American founding.

His perspective is very much like mine, and he informed me beforehand, he embraces the sentiments of John Taylor of Caroline, presumably expressed in his New Views on the Constitution. One thing that Kevin does that is hard-hitting and accurate is stress the importance of utilizing the proceedings of the State Ratifying Conventions to ascertain original intent. The problem I have with modern constitutional historiography is that it does accurately portray the purpose of the Convention or its power and authority, hence the ambiguous special pleadings for ratification known as the Federalist Paperst while the subsequent state ratifying conventions are ignored and marginalized. The fact that the people of the several states never ratified Hamilton's opinions, and the fact that Hamilton had offered a plan for complete consolidation at Philadelphia only to leave that Convention early also discounts the value of his special pleading for adoption of the Constitution as the be-all and end-all summation of original intent. In Federalist #40, Madison accurately stated that the Philadelphia Convention had no authority but to draft a Constitution and its powers were "merely advisory and recommendatory." Madison also disclaimed the value of his notes and contended that we should look for original intent not in the deliberations and proceedings of the convention to draft the Constitution, but in the text itself and in the proceedings of the state ratifying conventions. Madison observed, "...the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the authority which it possesses." In point of emphasis, "all the authority which it possesses." Gutzman contends in earnest for state sovereignty, and documents that there are "lights towards true construction," of the Constitution as John Taylor has suggested. "Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power," observed Taylor, "and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could have not reserved any rights by articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation. But the union possesses no innate sovereignty, like the states; it was not self-constituted; it is conventional, and of course subordinate to the sovereignties by which it was formed."

As Thomas E. Woods, Jr. notes: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is not another of the toothless and forgettable laments about the death of the Constitution at the hands of activist judges that we read from time to time from the right-wing pundit class, though of course Gutzman decries both of these things. This is a far more sweeping, much more fundamentally devastating indictment of the Supreme Court, of the "legal training" that raises up ever more people to perpetuate its record of dishonesty and usurpation, and of the American regime at large - which rests on the legal fictions Gutzman shreds in his book."

The official publisher's blurb from Regnery notes that the book:

* explains how the Constitution was understood by the founders who wrote it and the people who ratified it

* follows the Supreme Court as it uses the fig leaf of the Constitution to cover its naked usurpation of the rights and powers the Constitution explicitly reserves to the states and to the people

* shows how we slid from the Constitution's republican federal government, with its very limited powers, to an unrepublican "judgeocracy" with limitless powers

* reveals how huge swaths of American law and society were remade in the wake of Supreme Court rulings

* reveals how the Fourteenth Amendment has been twisted to use the Bill of Rights as a check on state power instead of on federal power, as originally intended

* exposes the radical inconsistency between "constitutional law" and the rule of law

* contends that the judges who receive the most attention in history books are celebrated for acting against the Constitution rather than for it

The book is basically a most profound and erudite exposition of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence since its impetus. In fact, Madison pledged during the ratification debates that the federal government try and simply get along without federal trial courts, allowing decisions to be adjudicated in state courts. The Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 changed that reality, but parts of it were later rescinded shortly thereafter for usurping the jurisdiction of the states. Though, the U.S. Supreme Court actually took initiative to declare portions of the Act unconstitutional. Kevin documents how the framers never intended the federal judiciary to be what it is today. In fact, their efforts to usurp constitutional authority from the states was a gradual dialectical process that happened over time. As Thomas Jefferson once lamented, "The natural progress of things is for tyranny to gain ground, and government to yield.

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
--Charles Evan Hughes, 1907, former chief justice

"What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court, that enables them to discern a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional? ... Day by day, case by case, this court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize."
--Justice Antonin Scalia

Hughes' quote above captures the arrogance of the imperialists on the federal judiciary, which really came to bloom in the twentieth-century under the auspices of the New Deal Court following FDR's court-stacking scheme coupled with the subsequent retirement of conservative justices. The fifth chapter, "The Imperial Judiciary: It Started with John Marshall," is a particularly interesting look at the work of John Marshall who shaped American constitutional law and made the U.S. Supreme Court a center of power. Marshall was the fourth Chief Justice of the United States, serving from February 4, 1801 until his death in 1835. Marshall invoked judicial review in a power grab in the famous Marbury v. Madison decision, but one could argue that judicial review was implicit in the nature of a federal system granted. The problem was that there was no federal common law, and that federal courts were courts of limited jurisdiction. As Senator Thomas Benton declard, "That Court is called Supreme; but this character of supremacy, which the Federal Constitution bestows upon it, has reference to interior courts--the District and Circuit--and not to the States of this Union." Under the American federal system, commensurate with original intent, we have two essential court systems: courts of general jurisdiction (e.g. the states) and courts of limited jurisdiction (e.g. federal courts.) In the course of time, however, this would soon changed, not by constitutional right, however, but by federal usurpation of the compact. During the ratification debates at the Virginia Convention of 1788, George Mason presciently claimed that one day the U.S. Supreme Court would swallow up the jurisdiction of the states. Mason was prophetic in that regard. By the twentieth-century, much of what law students and jurists learn in constitutional law classes might as well be called unconstitutional law.

Kevin captures another bittersweet reality in American constitutional history. The battle against Big Government, and the battle for constitutionally-limited government has been waged since the formative years of the American Republic. Going back to the good ole days in history, we only discover that the impulse for centralization, aggrandizement of political power, and constitutional usurpation has been with us since the commencement of the Republic. Though, Reconstruction and the New Deal certainly marked solid gains for the advocates of unfettered national power. We the People must be determined to renew and restore constitutionally-limited government, and it requires a firm grasp of our constitutional heritage to effectuate its renewal.

Well, this book was preaching to the choir with me. I was familiar with much of the findings already, but it is reassuring to see others see things the way I do. We are not the crazy and radical ones, as we advocate constitutionally-limited government and restoring the Anglo-American constitutional tradition to its former prominence. Those who stand for Big Government are the radicals, however, well entrenched their political class might be in Washington, D.C. I highly recommend it for students of jurisprudence and American history. It's very straightforward, relatively easy-to-read.

This is one of the most clearly written of all the PIGs I've read. From the first page to the last I was thoroughly PO'd at the Judiciary's attempts (and successes) at stealing power away from the other two branches of government and the People.

Author and scholar Thomas Wood's review really says it all, and far better than I can. Simply put, this book is a necessary read for all of us. It traces the history of the awful power and capriciousness of the U.S. Supreme Court; it exposes our pathetic and dangerous lack of education and knowledge of the Constitution; it reminds us of the all-but-forgotten principles of "states' rights"; it correctly notes the ongoing failings of our law schools, which produce endless attorneys virtually ignorant of the Constitution's meaning and intent.

I suggest you read the review by "ZXZXZX" for a few important specifics.

After reading this book you will wonder how much better a country we would have today, how much more freedom we would enjoy, if our national government had chosen to adhere to the Constitution, instead of ignoring and subverting it.

Breathtaking! Irrefutable! Erudite! The _Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution_ can help remove the shackles of constitution misinterpretation and error from the thoughtful reader! In a mere 221 pages of entertaining and perceptive text, Dr. Gutzman encourages a major reaffirmation of the American constitutional and political tradition. In other words, if you are a student of law, American politics, political theory, or American history, or a concerned citizen, you can overcome the "myth of [constitutional] incomprehensibility" promoted by professors and pundits alike. The problems that result from studying the Constitution by the "case method" are also exposed.

As a gifted historian and lawyer, Gutzman allows the reader to uncover the genuine and potentially-viable core of the American constitutional tradition: diffused authority. He traces the core tradition from the Colonial Era, to the Declaration of Independence, to the Articles of Confederation, to the Constitutional Convention and equally vital Ratification Period, and onward, while uncovering the litany of errors and false hagiography of previous scholarship (his treatment of James Madison and John Marshall alone are worth the price of the book!).

Most importantly, this book provides a significant critique of just how far we have departed from the American constitutional tradition. Utilizing as many Supreme Court decisions as one would fine in a standard law textbook, but presenting these decisions in a more historically accurate and exceeding readable format, you cannot afford to ignore this book!



H. Lee Cheek, Jr., Ph.D.

www.drleecheek.com

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is one of the best concise introductions to the Constitution. Dr. Gutzman, who is an expert on early American politics, has condensed two semesters worth of constitutional history into a brief and lively volume. If you have ever wondered how the Supreme Court reaches its decisions, or what relationship those decisions actually bear to the Constitution as ratified by the Founders, this is the book for you. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in constitutional history and especially those who are considering law school.

Finally someone has written a book which strikes at the core of the illegitimate (unconstitutional) present form of govnerment in the United States. Many attempts to write a book like this have failed. (Though William Watkin's "Reclaiming the American Revolution" would be a good follow up after reading Dr. Gutzman's book as an introduction). Books written by such authors as Andrew Napolitano advocate using federal judicial power to serve "conservative" ends; such as the national "liberty of contract" doctrine the federal courts conjured during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "Liberty of contract" was complete nonsense from a constitutional standpoint (as Dr. Gutzman makes clear). Napolitano would like to see "substantive due process" (based on the 14th amendment-- "ratified" at gunpoint) used for policy purposes he prefers. In this regard, Napolitano's policy based judicial philosophy is akin to the kind of philosophy which Gutzman shows to have destroyed our federal system of government. To my knowledge this is the first book which clearly rips apart the US Supreme Court's "incorporation doctrine," which turned a shield erected by the states against their agent, the "federal" government, into a weapon the federal courts use against the states, the people, and local self-government.

Two key things Dr. Gutzman left out of his "incorporation doctrine" discussion are (i) the preamble to the bill of rights, (ii) a discussion of the 9th amendment, and (iii) the lost history of the 9th amendment.

(i) According to the preamble to the federal bill of rights, "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution." So essentially, the bill of rights was put in place "to prevent misconstruction or abuse" of federal power. Though Dr. Gutzman doesn't specifically mention the preamble, he does a masterful job of explaining that the bill of rights is only supposed to protect individual liberties from interference by the federal government by making clear that Congress can only pass laws pursuant to its enumerated delegation of legislative power spelled out in Article I Section VIII. The states wanted to reserve power, not to grant additional power to the fed. As Dr. Gutzman also shows, the 14th Amendment, despite not being ratified pursuant to Article V, did nothing to change the plain meaning of the bill of rights.

(ii) Dr. Gutzman focuses plenty on the 10th amendment, which Jefferson considered the "cornerstone" of the Constitution, but he seems to neglect the 9th amendment. The 9th basically says that just because certain rights have been listed in the first 8 amendments does not mean that other rights are not also protected from federal interference. To illustrate, the 2nd amendment was put in place because of what happened yesterday (June 13, 2007- the US House passed a law placing new restrictions on gun owners). This gun law is not "necessary and proper to carry into execution" any of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress. The 2nd amendment, in lehman's terms, says, Congress, you don't have authority to pass restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Just so that you (Congress) don't get any crazy ideas, you're explictly barred from passing this law by the 2nd amendment. The 9th amendment would protect the right to bear arms from federal interference if the 2nd amendment didn't exist. The 9th and 10th amendments were really meant to work together to make it clear that Congress is strictly restricted to its enumerated powers. If Congress wanted more legislative power, Congress would have to ask for the power and the states would have to delegate that power (pursuant to Article V).

(iii) In brief, 12 amendments were sent out to the states in 1791, but only 10 were ratified. The 9th Amendment was originally called "Article the eleventh" since it was #11 in the list of 12. There was extensive early case law on the 9th amendment, but it was still referred to as "article the eleventh" in those days. When Gutzman discusses the destructive effect of court decisions from the 1960s, the Supreme Court couldn't find case law on the 9th amendment. Believing that there was a clean slate on 9th amendment law, the Supreme Court felt that it could create law. This sad accident of legal history isn't mentioned in Gutzman's book, but it has been studied extensively by Kurt Lash.

-----------------------------

From the fraudulent reassurances which the so-called "Federalists" perpetrated on the state ratification conventions, to John Marshall's destructive nationalist agenda, to the War for Southern Independence, to the consolidation of all power in Washington DC during the 1930s via the destruction of the commerce clause, through the court's arbitrary decisions of the 1960s--- Dr. Gutzman puts together the most objective and historically accurate introduction available for those interested in learning why things in Washington don't seem to make sense.

After reading this excellent book, you might find yourself filled with a desire to see the Supreme Court building razed to the ground. However, the only real solution to the problem of judicial (and federal) usurpation is through the threat of secession. Jefferson warned that if the federal government was made the final judge of its own powers that the federal government, and not the constitution, would be the supreme law of the land. Jefferson was right. The Declaration of Independence explains how to fix things... but in the meantime a good initial step in righting the ship (other than repealing the 16th and 17th amendments) would be to elect Dr. Ron Paul as President. Maybe Dr. Gutzman should run as his Vice-President?

I am admittedly far more liberal and "politically correct" than many of the readers this book will initially attract. That should not discourage anyone from engaging with Prof. Gutzman's lively interpretation of the Court and the Constitution. His deep concern about the meaning of law and the ideas which shape this nation make this an outstanding work. I would recommend this to anyone interested in Constitutional history and the debates which inform our understanding of law.