Jack N. Rakove has assembled in this volume a variety of views that survey the debate over the extent to which the intentions of the Constitution's framers should be used in contemporary adjudication. Included are writings by former Attorney General Edwin Meese, III, former Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Robert H. Bork, Lino Graglia, H. Jefferson Powell, Charles A. Lofgren, Paul Brest, Henry Paul Monaghan, and J. Morgan Kousser.
| |||||||||||||||
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
Review
"This collection includes some critical, penetrating, and balanced essays. . . . It is as good a handbook as we are likely to get on a profoundly important subject." -- American Journal of Legal History
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Pretty good introduction but not very thorough.,
By Kevin S. Currie (Richmond, VA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Interpreting The Constitution: The Debate Over Original Intent (Paperback)
Although this book might be somewhat exacting to the lay-reader, this book is much less academic than it could be. The format was great, the first three essays by Meese, Brennan and Graglia (awh hell! Throw in Rakove's introduction) starts us off very well, well acquainting the reader with the debate. We then move to "The public debate," which takes the 'schools' and puts them into current context, "historical perspectives" putting the issue into historical context, and finally, "normative issues" which outlays (albeit somewhat timidly) the competing philosophies of Original Intent and Judicial Activism. Overall, as with all essay compilations, some essays are better than others. Bork, Rakove, Brest, Brennan and Meese steal the show but the others provide a great supporting cast. Two complaints. First, the book leaves two critical views unexplored. First, judicial pragmatism, as outlayed by O.W. Holmes and Richard Posner, and Textualism, as exemplified by Antonin Scalia. Both are relatively small schools carrying comparitively little weight in the academic community but neither should be ignored. After all, both have contributed strongly to public debate, which is what this book is supposed to capture. Second, as mentioned by the reviewer below, the book is unusually cursory. Besides Borks "Neutral Principles", the book pays little attention to methodology, focusing all it's attention on cultural context. For methodology, read Dworkin's "Law's Empire" and Bork's "Tempting of America." Still, I give it four stars. As an introduction for pre-law students and the lay-person with intellectual stamina, it's the best I know of; Well laid out, good essays, and extremely balanced. Reccomended, but as nothing more than an introducton!
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
