Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
14 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Difficult to read, but worth the effort,
By
This review is from: Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution (Hardcover)
Bradford approaches the subject of Constitutional interpretation from a perspective that differs from conventional wisdom. James Madison said the constitution should be interpreted in light of the spirit and intent of the state ratifying conventions, and it is in this vein that Bradford offers his analysis. By focusing on the debates in the various states, he shows that today's courts are virtually ignoring the original intentions of the founders, as well as the intent of the authors of the "Reconstruction" amendments. This book is not thick, but it is heavy. Not easy reading, but well worth the effort - keep notes!
12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Should be a mandatory read for Congress.,
By
This review is from: Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution (Hardcover)
Forget Republicans and Democrats. Forget even liberals and conservatives. What we truly need, and will likely never have, are politicians who understand the principles of which M.E. Bradford chronicles here in ORIGINAL INTENTIONS: ON THE MAKING AND RATIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. The crux of that principle is a simple one. The purpose of the origination and ratification of the United States Constitution was to provide a method of governing the government, not to govern the people.
The classic work of Bradford's provides indepth study and unequivocal evidence of the original intentions (plural) of the Constitutional framers and the state conventions that ratified it. To be certain, each state differed from the next and, as such, interpreted differently the documents exact meaning. Bradford also makes case on the unconstitutionality, if you will, of the post-civil war "reconstruction amendments" and how, but subjecting the states to the will of the Bill of Rights, post-bellum politicians completely bastardized the Constitution. Certainly it was NEVER the intention of any of the thirteen ratifying bodies to subjugate states' rights. Bradford's work here presents an undeniable case that the constitution was set more as a federal limitation standard rather than the omnipotent body we find today. In the forward of this fine book, Forrest MacDonald quotes Webster with a remark that we are to, "defend the Constitution of the United States. For without it, the world would surely fall into a state of anarchy." Sadly, as Bradford illustrated to us in 1993, we're growing dangerously close to that point. This is, an indepth study. This is not intended for the casual reader of constitutional law or its origins. Be prepared for deep reflection and tons of note taking.
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
One of the perennial keystones to understanding original intent,
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution (Hardcover)
~Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution~ by M.E. Bradford, is an insightful look at the historical dynamics of the constitutional ratification process as it transpired between 1788-1790, as the thirteen states were admitted to the Union.
It is no accident that Bradford chose the title "Original Intentions" as opposed to "Original Intent," for his book begins an effort to elucidate a partial understanding of the respective ratifiers in the thirteen ratifying conventions. The biggest problem I have encountered with contemporary historiography regarding the United States Constitution, is there is so much nationalist revisionism about the nature of the constitutional framing and ratification process. The reason Originalism is in such tatters intellectually as a constitutional hermeneutic, is that some professed Originalists are not really cognizant of original intent, or at best, they craftily misrepresent or selectively recollect it. Moreover, the role and purpose of the Philadelphia Convention which deliberated and framed that noble document is misunderstood (or in some cases just plain misrepresented.) In Federalist #40, Madison accurately stated that the Philadelphia Convention had no authority but to draft a Constitution and its powers were "merely advisory and recommendatory." It was the thirteen respective states assembled in convention to whom ratification was submitted. Madison also disclaimed the value of his notes from the Philadelphia Convention to draft the Constitution. Madison contended that we should look for original intent not in the deliberations and proceedings of the convention to draft the Constitution, but in the text itself and in the proceedings of the state ratifying conventions to ascertain the intentions animating the Constitution. Madison observed, "...the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the authority which it possesses." In point of emphasis, "all the authority which it possesses." Though, many consolidationist proposals were made and rejected by such schemers as Alexander Hamilton, James McClurg, Gouverneur Morris, and James Wilson at Philadelphia. Amongst constitutional scholars, their nationalist heirs act as though the mere mention of something that was rejected at Philadelphia gives constitutionality to the nationalist schemes, just because the ambition was there in Philadelphia. The first nationalist subterfuge was to misname their opponents as Anti-Federalists, when the mild Federalists and Anti-Federalists all contended for the federal character of the Union. Following the adoption of the Constitution, the nationalists (i.e, consolidators) later sought to transform that document by another subterfuge, namely loose construction or re-interpretation of the supreme law. It was a specious attack upon the Constitution and residual state sovereignty. Justice Joseph Story once said of the commerce power and his understanding that original intent gave credence to protectionist measures: "If the constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a injustice upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" So, how much more of a injustice is it to trampled upon the reserved rights and powers of the states, and claim powers that were explicitly rejected by the ratifiers of the Constitution? The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution from the Wisconsin Historical Society opens our eyes to the representations made to the ratifiers. Among other radical ideas held by the ratifiers was that the ratifying states reserved the right to bolt and secede from the Union, if it ever subverted the ends for which it was created.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
