Customer Reviews

The 37th Amendment: A Novel

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Susan Shelley has come up with an intriguing premise for this, her first novel. It's an alternate explanation of a crime-free future in the USA to that set forth in the movie, "Minority Report" and the novel that preceded it.

In Shelley's Los Angeles of 2056, the use of capital punishment is wielded like an angry sword. The legal justification for this becomes possible when the 37th Amendment to the Constitution is passed in the year 2016. The road to the amendment is paved by a capable young lawyer C. Dobson Howe, who makes a name for himself in leading the nation's voters to demand true equality through a constitutional amendment, proposed on a grass-roots basis.

Others follow his plan, and the 37th amendment is enacted to take away the guarantee of due process in the Bill of Rights, repealing the 14th amendment provisions that the states would also insure due process. In the 40 years following the amendment, many states, California at the forefront, made harsh and expedited punishment the "law of their land" for violent crimes.

The effect of this after 40 years, is that, without as many rights as they have today, violent criminals have pretty much ceased to exist. California in 2056 is pretty idyllic in terms of the safety and security of its population. California's expedited punishment law has been curtailed by the Federal Ramirez Act, so that violent criminals are guaranteed some time to appeal to guard against mistakes; a minimum of 5 years. But California has challenged Ramirez as unconstitutional, and in the early pages of the novel, they win their appeal. As a result, rapid execution is reinstated.

The novel's hero, Ted Braden, is caught unawares in the middle of a violent murder case, one of few that LA has seen in recent years. Despite his assurance that the man accused of this murder couldn't have done it, because he was sitting near him at a Lakers' game when the murder occurred, the jury that convicts Robert Rand relies on the testimony of two eyewitnesses in a case of mistaken identity. Rand's fate is pursued by Braden, working with the assistance of a contact in the DA's office, Jordan Rainsborough, and C. Dobson Howe, aging, and determined to reverse the 37th amendment before he dies.

The story moves quickly and absorbs you in the tale of justice gone wrong. Shelley's writing is capable, Braden and Howe are believable - the romances of Braden are a touch unbelievable, particularly in the way he moves from woman to woman. But, you'll find yourself engrossed in the story and receptive to the way in which Shelley pursues it, particularly in light of her humor. The book handles the sidebar of the all but 100% disappearance of marriage in the future, and the reasons why, with a light touch. Although Jordan is somewhat of a caricature of the beauteous lawyer, her opening gambit, when many men ogle her, is amusing, "Sure, you think that. But you won't call."

In this day and age, when the composition of the Supreme Court, and those who control future appointments, will dictate whether Roe v. Wade survives, it is scary to realize that the Supreme Court does overrule itself on a political pendulum. As this somewhat complex process continues, it may very well be that the American people have to resort to the Constitutional Amendment process to protect their rights. In Shelley's dialogue: "..a decision of the Supreme Court can be overturned by the decision of a future Supreme Court. And that makes every vacancy on the Court a crisis for those who live by the grace of the last ruling. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, cannot be reversed simply because five of the nine justices think the time has arrived to reverse it." But this novel shows how that method can be a double-edged sword as well.

Complex and thoughtful, with a unique appendix that illustrates how an amendment came to protect something it was never intended to protect (the First Amendment and topless dancing), the 37th Amendment is a great introduction to a new writer's voice!

This book is advertised as a legal thriller and it is -- it certainly keeps you turning the pages -- but it's a lot more than just a story about the lives and loves of lawyers. What Susan Shelley has done in this novel is amend the U.S. Constitution to solve the crime problem, and then start the story forty years later, in 2056, to see how it turned out.

It's fascinating in kind of a back-to-the-future (but not quite) way. Picture the 1950s with modern women and without the bother of marriage.

While you're flying through the story (it moves!), thinking about how nice it would be to live in a nearly crime-free Los Angeles, the characters in the book are battling over a case of justice gone wrong and trying to change everything back to the way we do it now.

You'll find yourself identifying with the senior citizens in this book, the ones who remember how things were way back in the 1990s. These kids today....

This is a dazzling novel. It also includes an appendix, an amazing history of "How the First Amendment Came to Protect Topless Dancing." You'll definitely want to read it if you're interested in the Supreme Court, or if you're on the Supreme Court.

Five stars.

Set in 2056, Ms. Shelley's novel examines what happens when the due process clause of the United States Constitution is eliminated and states are truly free to set their own laws, no matter how draconian, without any federal oversight. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, this is a thought provoking examination of a United States legal system where the constitution has been amended to accomplish the states' rights agenda of many current politicans. The story presents both sides of the debate in a way that is simultaneously entertaining and intellectually challenging: a formidable accomplishment.

Set in the year 2056, forty years after a 37th amendment has removed "due process of law" from the United States Constitution, The 37th Amendment by Susan Shelley is an original and compelling novel about murder, crime, corruption, and hotly argued criminal trials. A fascinating "what-if" look into the near future, written with a solid understanding of law and legal history, The 37th Amendment also features an intriguing appendix "How the First Amendment Came to Protect Topless Dancing"; offers a passionate, insightful look at the constitutional and court system vs. states' rights; and closes with a singularly memorable quote: "Really, a Supreme Court justice should be able to retire without the whole country coming unglued about it".

I was drawn to this book by the concept and my enjoyment of "What if..." fiction. The idea is an interesting one, but I wish that Shelley had spent more time on developing her characters and plot and less on proselytizing her views on Federalism. Instead of telling a story with the concept as a background, Shelley uses most of her characters as straight men to lob up nice, slow softball-pitches to what becomes the book's main voice, the grandmother who fears a return to the "bad old days" of due process of law, who lectures the other characters and the reader with Shelley's opinions.

As to the depth of the characters, I was fascinated that the character who knew the least about the law and who acted with the least amount of common sense was the only female lawyer in the book. With the exception of the above-mentioned grandmother, the two main female characters are vapid, easily-manipulated sexpots. While both characters have careers that would seemingly require intelligence and character, neither seems to have any concept of what is going on, pout and cry when they don't get their way, and revert to a junior-high level of catty jealousy when their shared boyfriend, who is 20+ years older than both, mentions the other. I don't necessarily expect a female author to always write strong female characters, but these two were such shallow stereotypes that I just could not take this book seriously.

I personally disagree with many of Shelley's ideas about due process, but would have respected them more if she had worked harder on the delivery vehicle of the novel as a story, rather than a pulpit for her views. The addendum in the back, in the guise of a law review article, shows that Shelley did her legal homework. I just wish she had worked harder on the voices that delivered those facts.

It is the year 2056 and the 37th Amendment has been ratified ensuring that all individuals, regardless of race or gender, will be treated equally. This has effectively rid the county of anything that would give preference to a particular group including concepts such as affirmative action and quotas. It also left the individual States with the ability to govern themselves without federal oversight - especially without the Supreme Court.

California has taken this liberty and implemented extremely tough crime fighting laws that have significantly shortened the time one has to come to trial and prepare a defense. California has also become a frontrunner in the use and execution of the death penalty. As a result, crime rates have plummeted reacting to the swift and certain punishment associated with the harsher criminal justice system. But when one man is arrested for a brutal murder, those that come to his defense believe that he is innocent and it appears that the criminal laws, in place because of the 37th Amendment, will not provide them with an adequate opportunity to mount a defense and prepare for trial.

This novel presents an interesting philosophical question - is society willing to suffer a loss of due process rights in exchange for a safer, crime free community? The plot poses a circumstance where a loss of liberty has essential resulted in a safer community because law enforcement is free to walk up to gang members and search them for weapons without probable cause or even reasonable articulable suspicion. Most law abiding citizens would likely initially vote for the safer community. But how would they feel if they were the innocent accused? The book sets a sympathetic stage so that the reader will fight an internal battle throughout while enjoying the experience of the plot unfolding. The story suffers from some plot weakness, but ultimately succeeds in setting out an intriguing issue based in a fast paced storyline.

This book is just another exercise in fear and hatred by liberals. This time

directed at mainstream americans who want reform of the 14th amendment.

Contrary to the premise of the book, the 14th Amendment was never leagally

ratified to begin with and was never intended to apply the constrants of the

bill of rights to the states.

As to the rest of the premise, its the usual liberal nonsense. If you give

people freedom, it empowers them. Susan Shelley seems to think that people

can't be trusted with freedom. In particular, she thinks that people need

to be protected from their own state and local government while washington

is the source of all freedom and security. What nonsense. The founding

fathers feared and rejected an all-powerful federal government because they

knew that it, not the states, would become a tyranny to America.

What she wrote in the book is a good view of what liberalism would be like

if they still ruled the country. If the 14the Amendment were done away with,

we would see a return to true federalism, an end to big government stepping

on our rights, the supreme court returning to the original intent of our

founding fathers and an ownership society where freedom florished.

This book demonstrates why Bill Clinton's judicial nominees are so dangerous to America. These judicial nominees have a bad habit of rewriting law from the bench. This book shows that the Republicans who thwarted several of Clinton's nominees did the United States a favor.