by Leonard W. Levy
|
| List Price: | $15.95 |
| Amazon Price: | $10.85 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. |
| You Save: | $5.10 (32%) |
| Average Rating: |  |
| Lowest New Price: | $8.42 |
| Availablitiy: | Usually ships in 24 hours |
|
 |
|
Product Description
In this fascinating history of the origins of the Bill of Rights, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Leonard W. Levy offers a panoramic view of the liberties secured by the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Levy illuminates the behind-the-scenes manoeuvrings, public rhetoric, and political motivations of James Madison and others who overcame fierce opposition to ensure the ratification of these crucial liberties.
Customers who bought this item also bought
Average Customer Review:
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
 A Carefully Written History about Fragile Civil Liberties, 2008-01-07
G.K. Chesterton wrote that if men do not learn history, they will lose their rights. Leonard Levy's book titled THE ORIGINS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS justifies this remark, and this book gives a solid account of what should be important to Americans. Unfortunately, too many Americans do not know history and care little about their civil liberties. Yet, Levy' book is there for the record. Levy gives detailed background to civil liberties and explains that the Bill of Rights document was assure in early National U.S. History. THE ORIGINS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS is a book that explains the modifications and enhancements of rights which are too often taken for granted or have been forgotten.
The Framers, as Levy calls them, did not include a Bill of Rights when they wrote the Constitution in the summer of 1787. Some of the Framers did not think they were necessary. Others argued that the state constitutions provided for civil liberties rendering a Bill of Rights unnecessary. However, the Anti-Federalists used the fact that because the U.S. Constitution did not have a Bill of Rights, that was reason not to ratify the document. The Federalists looked foolish when arguing that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and quickly changed their views in support of the Bill of Rights. The political bargain was that a Bill of Rights would be proposed to be added to the U.S. Constutition, and ratificastion was based on this promise. The Anti-Federalists' complaint about a Bill of Rights is important. This reviewer wrote elsewhere that without the Anti-Federalists, there would be no Bill of Rights. Without a Bill of Rights, there would be no U.S. Constitution.
Levy begins the assertion of rights with the rights of Habeas Corpus and protection of Bills of Attainder. Habeas Corpus (to have the body or person) meant that one could not be detained indefinately without a formal charge of a specific criminal act. The Petition of Right (1628)provided this protection in an attempt to prevent English monarchs from arresting political opponents and dissenters and holding them without formal charges. This protection afforded those arrested a chance to inform a judge that charges were bogus, and defendants knew exactly what charges they faced. Therefore defendents and their attornies were able to mount a defense against the charges.
Bills of Attainder are forbidden in the U.S. Constitution. The English monarchs used Bills of Attainder to get death sentences against political opponents. A Bill of Attainder was a Parliamentary Act designed to punish someone without due process. Henry VIII got rid of Cromwell by this method.
Levy's book deals extensively with First Amendment Rights. At the time of ratification of the U.S. Constitution, most Americans were Protestant, and Protestants were given considerable religious freedom. Catholics found safe haven in Maryland, and aside from some Puritan excesses, there was almost complete religious freedom. Some colonial legislatures disestablished the Church of England. Unlike Europe, people could enter professions and businesses regardless of religious convictions. As an aside, the Pennsylvania colonists probably had the most religious freedom.
Other First Amendment Rights included Freedom of the Press and Speech. Blackstone's COMMENTARIES served as a guide which only provided that there should be no prior restainst. However, men could be charge for seditious libel for what was written and published. Criminal libel was enforced even after ratification of the Bill of Rights. Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, including Thomas Jefferson, used criminal libel laws against political opponents. But when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798, there was vigorous protest against criminal libel. These criminal actions stopped between 1798-1800 when men argued that since the government was of the people, they could not libel themselves by dissent and criticism.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was part of English Law. Levy explains that this was in part to keep men ready for militia duty, and men could use arms to protect their homes and loved ones. Pennsylvania which did not have a militia, still allowed men to be armned. This right has been debated with the improvement and lethal effect of modern firearms.
Levy's examination of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is interesting. Originall English authorities could use general warranst which violated privacy and security. Levy patiently explained that protest over Writs of Assistance used by British authorites gradually led to specific search and arrest warrants. This development was based on Chapter 39 of Magna Carta (1215) which Levy contends was misinterpretated.
Levy also explains that the Fourth Amendment overlaps the protection against self incrimination of the Fifth Amendment. If authorities had general warrants, they could use the abuse of search to incriminate men and women. Levy also gives a good explanation of the use of Grand Juries beginning with King Henry II (1154-1189). The problem of grand jurors is that they were used as trial jurors which tainted criminal cases. As early as 1352, the English separated grand juries from trial or petite juries. In other words, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the mention of grand juries blended with Sixth Amendment Rights.
Trial by jury originally gave defendents the right to challenge prosecutors and their witnesses. Gradually, defendants could confront hositle witnesses and present witnesses and evidence on their behalf. The use of 12 jurors may have been based on the 12 Tribes of Isreal or the 12 Apostles of Christ.
Seventh Amendment Rights provided that Common Law Rules would apply to civil cases. Anti-Federalist opponents complained about this until Madison & co. included it in the Bill of Rights.
Eighth Amendment protections against excessive fines and cruel and unusal punishment are self explanatory. Flogging was not considered cruel, and the English used flogging on women as late as 1841. The death penalty was not considered cruel as long as the execution did not involve torture. Basically, this amendment was based on the premise that the punishment fit the crime.
Levy explains that the Ninth Amendment protection of unenumerate rights was dormant until 1965 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law that forbade family planning and contraception. Levy explains that Ninth Amendment rights are part of natural law and includes decisions of marriage, family life, careers, etc. This amendment tried to protect those rights that could be forseen in the late 18th century.
Leonard Levy wrote a comprehensive book re The Bill of Rights. He could have cited the Catholic Canon Law as a source of Natural Law. He is one of the few to suggest that Trial by Jury originated with the Catholic Council of Lyon in 1215. Yet this book is important for anyone who appreciates his or her civil liberties. Unfortunately, those who do care are few in number these days.
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:
 Why Have a Bill of Rights?, 2007-01-02
It may come as a surprise to some that several framers of the Constitution thought that a Bill of Rights was not even necessary. Alexander Hamilton wrote "why for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed." Levy gladly points out that this logic is a central fallacy of the Federalist argument. This is only one of the interesting stories behind the enactment of the Bill of Rights told in this short book. The brief history of Habeas Corpus is well worth mentioning and is one of the highlights of Levy's study. However, as the book continues, Levy's analysis gets rather formulaic as he attacks amendment after amendment. Levy begins with the English common law roots and then compares and contrasts how the rights contained in the Bill came from the various colonies. However, Levy is a good enough writer to complement this formula with several interesting anecdotes to break up the monotony of his writing. Overall, a highly recommended introduction to the historical roots of Constitutional law.
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
Wonderful historical reference for the Bill of Rights, 2001-09-06
Well written and interesting. This book gives a wonderful historical perspective of the laws, practices, and history that led up to the framing of the Bill of Rights. With careful study, Levy has built a window into the politics, thoughts, and fears that led to the inclusion of the BOR and includes many examples of the reasons that they were included. Well written and entertaining, this lesson in American history reads like series of short stories.
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
Origins of the Bill of Rights, 2001-08-03
The upset with politicians today is nothing new. "Origins.." puts a human history face on the Bill of Rights. Amazing that our country has retained the original hopes of our founders. Levy is excellent in his description and inspiration.
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
Indispensible for Anyone Interested in Preserving Our Rights, 2001-07-20
Levy, the author of many books on this & related topics, oudoes himself with this gem. It's a refreshing change from the insinuations of today's anti-rights crowd, who seem to have never heard of the 9th Amendment (or pretend not to understand it), that the exact language in the first 10 amendments gives us (or delimits) our rights. All the Bill of Rights does is to guarantee the rights we already have. By delving into the history of the most important amendments and showing why they were needed and enacted, Levy shows clearly that they are indeed inalienable -- and that they were intended to be limitations on the power of the government. To use an analogy, suppose all of the Framers were atheists, and that one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights specifically PROHIBITED (i.e., made illegal) the construction or existence of churches. Would the fact that the Founders had written this and had it ratified by the states mean that we have no legal or moral right to build or attend houses of worship? How could the Framers have possessed the authority to deny us this right? As Levy's analysis makes clear, human rights antedate governments and therefore cannot be abridged or violated by them. This well-written book is very clearly presented and easy to understand; one need not be an expert on the subject, or a lawyer, to be enlightened by it. Read it yourself and then recommend it to both high school and college students.
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
|