This book is a sweeping indictment of the legal profession in the realm of constitutional interpretation. The adversarial, advocacy-based American legal system is well suited to American justice, in which one-sided arguments collide to produce a just outcome. But when applied to constitutional theorizing, the result is selective analysis, overheated rhetoric, distorted facts, and overstated conclusions. Such wayward theorizing finds its way into print in the nation's over 600 law journals - professional publications run by law students, not faculty or other professionals - and peer review is almost never used to evaluate worthiness. The consequences of this system are examined through three timely cases: the presidential veto, the "unitary theory" of the president's commander-in-chief power, and the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms." In each case, law reviews were the breeding ground for defective theories that won false legitimacy and political currency. This book concludes with recommendations for reform.
Saving the Constitution from Lawyers
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle.
Learn more
FREE Two-Day Shipping for Students. Learn more |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Book Description
Special Offers and Product Promotions
- Buy $50 in qualifying physical textbooks, get $5 in Amazon MP3 Credit. Here's how (restrictions apply)
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Fair, fearless, and ferocious, Bob Spitzer has done it again. In Saving the Constitution from Lawyers, he dissects law journals run by law students - and demolishes their one-sided and poorly supported briefs for the line-item veto, the unitary theory of the executive, and the right to bear arms."
--Glenn Altschuler, Litwin Professor and Dean, Cornell University
"No one will read law review articles in the same way after reading Spitzer. Let's hope that no one will write them in the same way either. This book is a tour de force, and should be required reading for every law student, legal scholar, and student of constitutional and public law."
--Richard M. Pious, Adolph and Effie Ochs Professor, Department of Political Science, Barnard College Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University
"In this compelling and erudite work, Robert Spitzer skewers the legal profession and legal (mis) education with skill, wit and elegance. This brilliant and insightful indictment of the profession is a clarion call for citizens to recapture the essence of the Constitution that has been lost, stolen and perverted by so-called "legal authorities". Spitzer asks us to be wary of constitutional interpretation as filtered through the decidedly unbalanced lens of a profession accustomed to adversarial advocacy as opposed to a systematic search for truth. This book is certain to give the legal profession a first-rate headache."
--Michael A. Genovese, Loyola Chair of Leadership, Loyola Marymount
University, Author of Memo to a New President
"American law schools are filled with smart students and even smarter scholars. Yet it is hardly a secret that the basic medium of scholarly discourse--the law review--repeatedly trades in a debased currency, in part because scholars over-argue like the future lawyers they are training, and in part because their students lack the intellectual credentials to evaluate legal scholarship. Nowhere is the gap between pretension and performance more evident than in the realm of constitutional law, and Robert Spitzer explains why."
--Jack Rakove, W. R. Coe Professor of History and American Studies & Professor of Political Science, Stanford University, Pulitzer Prize for Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution
"Spitzer's critique of law reviews is balanced by his respect for lawyers, their function in the American system of justice, and his reverence for the Constitution. But just as valuable as his analysis of the systemic problems with law journals is his impressive, scholarly analysis of three major contemporary constitutional issues: the item veto, the Second Amendment, and the "unitary executive" theory. Spitzer's book will be controversial, but his constitutional analysis will remain valuable to everyone who wants to understand these important Constitutional issues."
--James Pfiffner, Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University
"I devoted the Labor Day weekend to reading Saving the Constitution from Lawyers. It was time well spent. I have no serious disagreement with anything in the book. ...thesis is sound, ...proof for it is overwhelming. I agree that all who write for law reviews, whether students, faculty members, or others, should possess the skills of scholarship and ideally formal training in scholarship. ...I hope the book is taken seriously by law school deans and faculty members, judges, lawyers, and constitutional scholars generally. It is an important and timely work."
--David Danelski, Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University
"The dominant theme of this little book is that law school law review journals have a publishing process that sometimes results in judges and justices misinterpreting the Constitution....Recommended."
--D. S. Mann, College of Charleston, CHOICE
"...Spitzer has staked out his position in these fascinating debates, revealing for us how political movements throw off generations of precedent and historical meaning and take on a new cloak of constitutional authority."
--Patrick Schmidt, Department of Political Science, Macalester College, The Law and Politics Book Review
"...In Saving the Constitution from Lawyers, political scientist Robert J. Spitzer presents a sharp critique of the "wayward constitutional theorizing" (p. 177) published in law journals...Professor Spitzer contributes detailed case studies showing that a lack of rigor in law schools turned laughably bad arguments into law - "and no one is laughing now" (p. 128)."
--HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 122:1279]
--Glenn Altschuler, Litwin Professor and Dean, Cornell University
"No one will read law review articles in the same way after reading Spitzer. Let's hope that no one will write them in the same way either. This book is a tour de force, and should be required reading for every law student, legal scholar, and student of constitutional and public law."
--Richard M. Pious, Adolph and Effie Ochs Professor, Department of Political Science, Barnard College Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University
"In this compelling and erudite work, Robert Spitzer skewers the legal profession and legal (mis) education with skill, wit and elegance. This brilliant and insightful indictment of the profession is a clarion call for citizens to recapture the essence of the Constitution that has been lost, stolen and perverted by so-called "legal authorities". Spitzer asks us to be wary of constitutional interpretation as filtered through the decidedly unbalanced lens of a profession accustomed to adversarial advocacy as opposed to a systematic search for truth. This book is certain to give the legal profession a first-rate headache."
--Michael A. Genovese, Loyola Chair of Leadership, Loyola Marymount
University, Author of Memo to a New President
"American law schools are filled with smart students and even smarter scholars. Yet it is hardly a secret that the basic medium of scholarly discourse--the law review--repeatedly trades in a debased currency, in part because scholars over-argue like the future lawyers they are training, and in part because their students lack the intellectual credentials to evaluate legal scholarship. Nowhere is the gap between pretension and performance more evident than in the realm of constitutional law, and Robert Spitzer explains why."
--Jack Rakove, W. R. Coe Professor of History and American Studies & Professor of Political Science, Stanford University, Pulitzer Prize for Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution
"Spitzer's critique of law reviews is balanced by his respect for lawyers, their function in the American system of justice, and his reverence for the Constitution. But just as valuable as his analysis of the systemic problems with law journals is his impressive, scholarly analysis of three major contemporary constitutional issues: the item veto, the Second Amendment, and the "unitary executive" theory. Spitzer's book will be controversial, but his constitutional analysis will remain valuable to everyone who wants to understand these important Constitutional issues."
--James Pfiffner, Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University
"I devoted the Labor Day weekend to reading Saving the Constitution from Lawyers. It was time well spent. I have no serious disagreement with anything in the book. ...thesis is sound, ...proof for it is overwhelming. I agree that all who write for law reviews, whether students, faculty members, or others, should possess the skills of scholarship and ideally formal training in scholarship. ...I hope the book is taken seriously by law school deans and faculty members, judges, lawyers, and constitutional scholars generally. It is an important and timely work."
--David Danelski, Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University
"The dominant theme of this little book is that law school law review journals have a publishing process that sometimes results in judges and justices misinterpreting the Constitution....Recommended."
--D. S. Mann, College of Charleston, CHOICE
"...Spitzer has staked out his position in these fascinating debates, revealing for us how political movements throw off generations of precedent and historical meaning and take on a new cloak of constitutional authority."
--Patrick Schmidt, Department of Political Science, Macalester College, The Law and Politics Book Review
"...In Saving the Constitution from Lawyers, political scientist Robert J. Spitzer presents a sharp critique of the "wayward constitutional theorizing" (p. 177) published in law journals...Professor Spitzer contributes detailed case studies showing that a lack of rigor in law schools turned laughably bad arguments into law - "and no one is laughing now" (p. 128)."
--HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 122:1279]
Book Description
This sweeping indictment of the legal profession's forays into constitutional theorizing argues that legal training and writing are ill suited to scholarly analysis of critical constitutional issues. Through careful examination of legal principles and the law's vast student-run publishing venue - law reviews - Spitzer concludes that wayward constitutional theorizing is too often the result.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Robert J. Spitzer is Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the State University of New York, College at Cortland, where he has taught for over thirty years. He is also Series Editor for the book series "American Constitutionalism" for SUNY Press. He's received the SUNY Chancellor's Award for Excellence in Scholarship, and served as President of the Presidency Research Group, an international association of presidency scholars (affiliated with the American Political Science Association). He has testified before Congress on several occasions, and is often quoted and interviewed by American and international news outlets. He earned his Ph.D. from Cornell University.
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A Compelling Critique,
By Hollywood Gourmand "Hollywood Gourmand" (Baltimore, MD United States) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Saving the Constitution from Lawyers: How Legal Training and Law Reviews Distort Constitutional Meaning (Hardcover)
Interesting critique of the often 'shaky' nature of law journal
scholarship and writing, spotlighting topics that have been embraced by the political Right. Someone with comparable gravitas should be inspired to use Spitzer's engaging format to expose the glut of Progressive overreaching that crowds these journals as well. His section debunking the "individualist" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the main flaw here, and displays a tendency toward the kind of dismissive, politically-biased scholarship that he opposes so successfully elsewhere in this work (and robs this review of two stars). I need to go back and check just how many of the "collectivist school" Second Amendment law journal articles cited were actually bankrolled by the Joyce Foundation and other gun control advocacy groups.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Inside This Book
(learn more)
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Key Phrases - Statistically Improbable Phrases (SIPs):
(learn more)
adversarial justice, most remarkable institution, legal reasoning, twilight war, partisan justice, inherent item veto, law review system, law journal breeding ground, law journal writing, law review writing, veto argument, lower federal court rulings, militia view, unitary executive theory, publishing realm, advocacy scholarship, individualist view, law journal articles, item veto powers, law school curriculum, law school education Key Phrases - Capitalized Phrases (CAPs): (learn more)
New York, Supreme Court, Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment, United States, Harvard Law Review, Working Group Report, Washington Post, Civil War, Louis Fisher, New Haven, The Rules of Inference, American Law, University of Chicago Law Review, Yale University Press, Wall Street Journal, Oxford University Press, The Presidential Veto, John Yoo, Last Writes, Yale Law Journal, Office of Legal Counsel, University Press of Kansas, The Line-Item Veto, Princeton University Press Browse Sample Pages:
Front Cover | Table of Contents | First Pages | Index | Surprise Me!
adversarial justice, most remarkable institution, legal reasoning, twilight war, partisan justice, inherent item veto, law review system, law journal breeding ground, law journal writing, law review writing, veto argument, lower federal court rulings, militia view, unitary executive theory, publishing realm, advocacy scholarship, individualist view, law journal articles, item veto powers, law school curriculum, law school education Key Phrases - Capitalized Phrases (CAPs): (learn more)
New York, Supreme Court, Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment, United States, Harvard Law Review, Working Group Report, Washington Post, Civil War, Louis Fisher, New Haven, The Rules of Inference, American Law, University of Chicago Law Review, Yale University Press, Wall Street Journal, Oxford University Press, The Presidential Veto, John Yoo, Last Writes, Yale Law Journal, Office of Legal Counsel, University Press of Kansas, The Line-Item Veto, Princeton University Press Browse Sample Pages:
Front Cover | Table of Contents | First Pages | Index | Surprise Me!
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items. |
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
