by Akhil Reed Amar
|
| List Price: | $19.95 |
| Amazon Price: | $13.57 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. |
| You Save: | $6.38 (32%) |
| Average Rating: |  |
| Lowest New Price: | $6.00 |
| Availablitiy: | Usually ships in 24 hours |
|
 |
|
Product Description
A leading scholar of constitutional law delivers an incisive and brilliant new account of the Bill of Rights and explodes conventional wisdom about our most basic charter of liberty. Akhil Reed Amar not only illuminates the text, structure, and history of the 1789 Bill but also argues that its present character owes more to antislavery activists of the Reconstruction era than to the Founding Fathers who created the Bill.
Amazon.com Review
"The Bill of Rights stands as the high temple of our constitutional order--America's Parthenon--and yet we lack a clear view of it," Akhil Reed Amar writes in his introduction to The Bill of Rights. "Instead of being studied holistically, the Bill has been broken up ... with each segment examined in isolation." With The Bill of Rights, Amar aims to put the pieces back together and take a longer view of a document few Americans truly understand. Part history of the Bill, part analysis of what the Founding Fathers' intentions really were, this book provides a unique interpretation of the Constitution. It is Amar's hypothesis that, contrary to popular belief, the Bill of Rights was not originally constructed to protect the minority against the majority, but rather to empower popular majorities. It wasn't until 19th-century post-Civil War reconstruction and the introduction of the 14th Amendment that the notion of individual rights took hold. Prior to that, the various amendments to the Constitution that make up the Bill of Rights were more about the structure of government and designed to protect citizens against a self-interested regime. Yet so great has been the impact of the 14th Amendment on modern legal thought that the Bill's original intentions have almost been forgotten. Through skillful interpretation and solid research, Amar both reconstructs the original thinking of the Founding Fathers and chronicles the radical changes that have occurred since the inclusion of the 14th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The results make for provocative reading no matter where you stand on the political spectrum.
Customers who bought this item also bought
Average Customer Review:
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:
 FANTASTIC!!!, 2007-09-04
I saw Amar on PBS, read his book on the history of the Constitution, and was thus driven to read The Bill of Rights. Being neither an attorney nor historian, I still found this to be an excellent read. I suspect that Amar could craft a listing a postal zip codes into an enthralling book. Of course, the creation of constitutional law is a topic that sells itself (at least to me)... He uses a textual analysis. At times, it seemed that he made his point several pages earlier. Most of the time that I read this piece, I sat in front of Google and typed in a smattering of his plethora of referenced facts. The focus of his discussion is on the first 10 adopted amendments and how the 14th amendment then modified each. He mentions the others briefly. Amar might have cited books, newspapers, more speeches that would help the reader better appreciate the zeitgeist of the time and how it affected the framers of 1 - 10 and those who adopted 14. More discussion on the originally proposed 2 amendments that were not ratified and why not might have been interesting, too. I also wish that, someday, hint, Amar will take this to the next step and address current socio-political issues using constitutional textual analysis. I enjoy his work. I think that his writing continues to evolve and I look forward to future works by him.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
 Understanding the Bill of Rights, 2006-06-08
The The Bill of Rights by Akhil Reed Amar takes an original look at the Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution that became known as the Bill of Rights. Amar, a professor at Yale University Law School, is one of the most respected constitutional scholars in the country.
His study of the famed document brings him to conclusions that have previously been ignored or unheard of. The main thesis, that the Amendments were originally designed to protect the majority, rather than the rights of individuals and minorities, is not a common view, but he has substantial evidence and research to support this conclusion.
A main focus in the book is the difference in the Bill of Rights before and after the era of Reconstruction and the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment. The role of Anti-federalism, which is a main contributor to the first Ten Amendments, is explained and elaborated on, as is Federalism and James Madison's role in the shaping of the Constitution and its Amendments.
Amar takes a clear stance on two issues, that the Amendments should be studied as a whole document and the great effect the Fourteenth Amendment had on the Bill of Rights. The book itself is split into two parts, one details the creation and history of the Bill of Rights, while the other details it after Reconstruction, the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and its change to having a role of protection of individuals and minorities.
Understanding the Bill of Rights and its role in our country today is of great value and Amar's The Bill of Rights appears to provide an accurate and informative guide.
11 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
Great, except Amar doesn't quite understand his own work..., 2006-01-03
...where the 2nd Amendment is concerned!
First, let me state that the book is an EXCELLENT piece of work for all the reasons stated by others. Buy it.
But:
Amar is a definate Liberal in the modern sense. He doesn't seem to LIKE where his research took him with regards the right to arms.
Towards the very end, he talks weakly about how "well yeah, maybe we DO have a personal right to arms - muzzleloaders such as circa 1792..." or words to that effect.
Sigh. Sorry professor, but you should have looked into the state of arms development circa 1868 when the 14th passed. The Gatling Gun had been invented in 1862. The North was fielding whole regiments armed with 15-shot (high capacity anyone?) rifles. At Gettysburg 2,000ish crack Union cavalry established a "defensive beachhead" early in the fight, holding off many times their number of Southerners with their Spencer 7-shot carbines. The Mormons had invented the snubnose revolver sometime after 1855. And with Smith & Wesson's patent on the through-bored cylinder about to expire in 1872, everybody *knew* that a revolution in handguns was in the offing - sure enough the Colt SAA "Peacekeeper" of 1873 revolutionized personal defense. Even back in 1868, percussion revolvers had been in use since 1837 and were hence common enough used for the Freemen to afford.
It gets wilder. In the South, any black spotted with a gun would have been shot on sight regardless. Only *concealed* arms would have afforded protection of the sort John Bingham (primary author of the 14th) preached for black defense against the proto-KKK and rogue state agents.
Amar also ignores much of the now-well-understood level of racism in arms control after 1868 and fails to link it to the general collapse of the 14th post-reconstruction. Interested parties should fill in the gap with historian Clayton Cramer's published thesis paper "The Racist Roots Of Gun Control" available all over the 'net.
In short: Amar is absolutely correct, but he doesn't like what he finds and seeks to minimalize it!
Genuinely comical.
12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
A Sound Overview of the Bill of Rights and Reconstruction Amendments, 2005-10-18
~The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction~ is an informative historical exposition of the Bill of Rights and the rich republican tradition animating these protections from the impetus of the American republic. The Bill of Rights (specifically the first eight amendments thereof) are often misunderstood as it was not a positive grant of rights to the people, but it was rather a negative upon the federal government exercising restrictions upon generally-accepted common law protections, hence the phraseology "Congress shall make no law..." in the First Amendment.
When I studied constitutional law in college, I found this book to be valuable for surmising the original intent of the framers. Today, we understand constitutional liberties through the lens of federal judicial interpretation, which is often much different today than the prevailing interpretations at the time the Bill of Rights was framed. Amar opens the book by trying to remind the reader to take off their modern blinders in order to understand original intent, as the prevailing constitutional hermeneutic is rooted in nationalist ideology. Some have nationalism so ingrained in their psyche, they have difficulty fathoming that the federal government's day-to-day role in the lives of Americans was diminutive in the early years of the American republic. Concomitant to this nationalist ideology is the idea that the federal government is cast as the champion and guardian of constitutional liberties, whereas the states are viewed as the enemy of liberties that often need to be corrected by a wiser, more restrained federal government. However, at the time of the framing of the Bill of Rights, the fear was that the federal government would be the usurper. Amar succinctly explains the logistics of the incorporation doctrine and the Reconstruction Amendments which profoundly changed the application of the Bill of Rights. The great strength of Amar's book is his effort to distinguish between modern interpretations and original intent. It seems modern constitutional scholars are often apt to misconstrue original intent to laity so as to pragmatically vindicate their trendy modern interpretations of the Bill of Rights. Amar, on the other hand, is more focused on setting the Bill of Rights in its historical context while he documents the changes that came particularly with the incorporation doctrine ancillary to the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.
Amar's book devotes considerable attention to the First Amendment. Therein, he elaborates upon the first constitutional crisis which emerged following the controversial passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. He succinctly presents the common law understanding of the freedoms of religion, speech, press, and assembly. In explaining the First Amendment, he advances the de facto states-rights reading that was prevalent in the 1790s when the Amendment was framed. Amar astutely illustrates how it was intended by the framers to essentially forbid the federal government from either infringing upon those rights, much less legislating upon matters concerning religious establishment, speech and press. Modern scholars often see the states-rights' gloss as somewhat of a nuisance, and they peel it off, and in effect disfigure the proper historical context of understanding the First Amendment, and most of the other subsequent amendments in the Bill of Rights. Amar also offers enlightening chapters: on the military amendments (i.e. Second and Third Amendments), on searches, seizures and takings (i.e. Fourth and Fifth Amendments), and juries (i.e. Fifth Amendment), and the protection of unenumerated and reserved rights (i.e. Ninth and Tenth Amendments).
Built on the Anglo-American tradition of liberties which traces itself back to the Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights was a desired Anti-Federalist counterweight to prevent a centralized state from trampling upon the cherished liberties of the people within the Anglo-American common law tradition. The application of the Bill of Rights has undergone a profound metamorphosis with the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments particularly the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the subsequent incorporation doctrine emerged thereafter, and now the federal judiciary is seen as the final arbitrator and protector of the rights of the people. Ironically, the Bill of Rights was framed to prevent the federal government from usurping the rights of the people. Amar gives the reader a unique perspective on these protections around the time the Bill of Rights was originally framed. There is a cosmic irony in the fact the Anti-Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights to protect against federal usurpation of the common law rights of the people, and they like the Federalists saw the States as the protector of those rights. With the passage of time, the Bill of Rights has given the pretext that the federal judiciary is the defender and expositor of constitutional liberties. Originally, the Federalists contended that the federal government had no such powers, so the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. Alexander Hamilton even warned, "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights... are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted." One wonders where we would stand without the Bill of Rights. Would we jealously turn to the States to be the guardians of our liberties? Or in the absence of the Bill of Rights, would the greatly bloated federal government have simply gobbled up those protections by now?
Amar's book is good quality and a useful resource, but it is by no means profound. However, in an age where shoddy revisionism that maligns original intent is so prevalent, Amar's book is to be commended and is a worthwhile reference for any constitutional scholar and jurist. So, this book is useful a counterbalance to the often spurious notions of original intent purported by many modern scholars. It is for the most part objective and historically accurate. There is no revisionist spin on the Second Amendment which is so fashionable among modern statist liberals: Amar makes it very clear that republican ideology animated the amendment, and a well-armed citizenry was considered a requisite deterrent to tyranny and provided the means of throwing off oppressive and unjust government.
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
near-ultimate book on Bill of Rights, 2005-03-29
Amar shines when it comes to descibing the evolution of perspective regarding the Supreme Court and Congress' understanding of the first 10 amendments pre-XIV and post-XIV amendment. I would have preferred a little more underlying history in terms of the development of these amendments to understand strict constructionist logic, but in terms of how the Court itself post-1789 has interpreted the Bill of Rights, this book is par excellence.
For an understanding of the Bill from a textualist and from a abstract principalist perspective, this book provides a near perfect analysis.
Price is accurate as of the date/time indicated. Prices and product availability are subject to change. Any price displayed on the Amazon website at the time of purchase will govern the sale of this product.
|
Store Categories
|