Customer Reviews

Constitutional Stupidities, Constitutional Tragedies

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

 

 

Although this is a collection of essays that all constitutional scholars will want to have on their shelves, it is also something that non-lawyers who are interested in the U.S. Constitution will be interested in.

The impetus for this work was a symposium in "Constitutional Commentary," which is a faculty-run law review based at the Univ. of Minn. law school. In 1995, the law review published responses from leading constitutional scholars about what they thought was the stupidest provision in the Constitution. Most of those responses are reprinted here, either in the original form, or edited if the author chose to do so. In addition, other scholars write here on what they thought were the greatest "tragedies" of the Constitution (with, one should note, numerous introductory dissertations on what constitutes a tragedy).

Among the stupidities: (1) if Al Gore (as the vice-president) were impeached, say for fundraising scandals, he would be entitled to preside over his own Senate trial!; (2) California, which has about 65 times the population of Wyoming, has the same number of Senators -- a result that cannot be amended; and (3) because it is the Electoral College -- and not the voters -- who actually elect the president, it is theoretically possible that a person will be elected president who receives fewer popular votes than his/her opponent.

I personally found Georgetown law professor Mark Tushnet's response to the be the most amusing: "The Whole Thing."

This is an easily accessible book, and despite the seemingly frivolous nature of the topic, it actually provides very serious commentary on the U.S. Constitution.