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.
Comment ( )

Pros: many interesting cases and a very good subject matter.
Cons: not sure as I haven't read other books on this subject. ( )

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!