Customer Reviews

The Constitution in 2020

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

 

 

This book's premise is interesting - gather the country's top liberal constitutional law experts and write a book (originally a conference) on how progressives would interpret the Constitution. I consider myself somewhat a progressive budding comparative constitutional law scholar, so the book fit some of my ideological biases. However, I'm much more concerned about good scholarship and sound arguments, and in that respect this book didn't meet my expectations. I found some of the articles too short to really address the topic at hand, and therefore shallow. Others barely concealed their liberal bias, which in turn affected their reasoning by focusing on the goal and not the means. The authors seem to argue their views based on unrealistic notions of what constitutes "progressive."

For example, in my own field of comparative law, Vick Jackson (unarguably the world's leading scholar in comparative constitutional law), argues that U.S. courts should be allowed to refer to foreign law (a proposition with which I agree). In doing so, she rationalizes that progressives should support such a goal because they believe that it is "better to know more than to know less" - as if all conservatives were ignoramuses who disdained knowledge. Knowing more is one thing, but the debate around the use of foreign law concerns HOW that knowledge is used. While some Republican politicians may be ignoramuses, I don't think anybody could accuse John Roberts of that crime. Another of her arguments is that the judiciary is under attack when judges are restricted in their use of foreign law. This ignores the fact that Congress does have a constitutional right to determine what constitutes law and restrict the judiciary's jurisdiction. At most, Jackson's claim constitutes fear-mongering. Rather, the real debate over the use of foreign law is 1) whether U.S. judges can and will ever understand it well enough to apply it (something I frankly don't think will happen since U.S. judges know U.S. law), and 2) whether using foreign law circumvents the democratic process and imposes foreign norms on U.S. citizens. I think there are responsible ways to use foreign law, Jackson's article doesn't address this nuance.

I had expected more from the country's top constitutional law scholars. Maybe they didn't treat these articles seriously and this isn't their best works. Admittedly, these types of compendium books rarely represent the best scholarship but rather aim for general audiences. Nonetheless, if this book was intended to make a case for liberal constitutionalism, it doesn't succeed.

The premise that the Constitution is a living breathing document is total hogwash. If that were the case - then why have a Constitution at all? Under this premise the Constitution can be "interpreted" any way the justices see fit. It is not difficult to come to some rationale for your decision if you interpret the law as opposed to applying the law. This book endorses legislating from the bench. In this case we are ruled by 9 people appointed for life. Nine Kings if you will. The Constitution should be applied by the high court and amended by the congress as needed. That is what the amendment process is for. If it is too difficult to have the constitution amended - that should tell you something right there. See an alternate point of view here Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America? .

The Constitution in 2020 is a long overdue effort by progressive legal scholars to articulate their vision of the Constitution. Modeled after the Constitution in 2000, a document produced in the Reagan Justice Department that shaped the direction of conservative legal thought, the book is timely and engaging.

It provides a wonderful introduction to progressive legal thought for law students and lay people alike. The chapters are very accessible, and clearer than your typical law review article -- this is definitely a book written for the general public, not for constitutional scholars. And the essays cover the whole gamut of legal issues, from first amendment rights to social and economic rights to citizenship issues.

Moreover, the book pulls together essays from the leading progressive thinkers of our time. If any ideas are likely to shape the progressive legal agenda for years to come, it is those of the contributors to this volume.

This collection of essays will be extremely valuable for people interested in learning more about progressive legal thought.

This book is definitely progressive.....and like most liberal arguments, has no basis in truth. Fantasy is the order of the day here. The article on using foreign laws by SCOTUS, would be treasonous by definition. For example, if our judges are allowed to use Sharia Law, where would a Muslim woman in America receive her basic individual, human rights? How can America hope to make justice prevail in a Muslim country if it is not even followed in America? It is ridiculous to think that a nation should set aside it's own principles to accommodate each and every culture that adds to the mix. Rather, America's success has been attributed to the fact that it is "out of many, one". Other cultures left their own behind to choose to become part of the AMERICAN culture, one based on ideals codified in our basic Constitution. The authors would have us believe that we should put it in reverse, and become "out of one, many". Diversity, by it's definition, separates us. Any casual look at philosophy will uncover quotes such as "a house divided against itself cannot stand", "divide and conquer"; and "there is strength in numbers", etc. In fact the ONLY reason the Constitution was written, was to unite the group of sovereign states into a federal system, that would be given (by the states) just enough power needed to protect their individual sovereignty, such as a united defense against enemies. This fact is ignored by the authors. It seems the reasoning applied in this book is entirely flawed and baseless. Their assumption is that the preamble is to be ignored, and instead of acknowledging that our government exists to protect the rights men get from their Creator, they assume man should get his rights from the global elite so that they can control everything man does from cradle to grave. They arrogantly know best, and need to provide very limited choices to man, assuming man can avoid bad choices he would otherwise make on his own. They miss the fact that this nation is based on understanding human nature, that man has a spirit longing to be free, and man should be allowed to look for his own definition of success, even if he might fail trying to find it for himself. No one can impose happiness on any man, especially by giving him things that must be taken from others in order to give. Rather, charity can fulfill both the giver and receiver when the government stops trying to take over that role. In summary, the authors' goal here is nothing less than to tear apart the very foundation of the republic. A more honest title would be, "How to Throw the World's Hope of Freedom onto the Heap of Failed Socialist Regimes, 2020."

Nowhere will you find so much progressive-minded legal brainpower accumulated in such a short, readable volume. Many of the top law professors in the country combine here to produce a vision--albeit one in pieces--of the Constitution not subsumed to the Reagan Justice Department's political mission, as ours has been in the past 30 years.