Most Helpful Customer Reviews
54 of 56 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Possible Post Mortum of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, August 2, 2008
This review is from: Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (Hardcover)
Messers Woods and Gutzman wrote a provocative book that should be read by Americans who actually care about law-and-order plus individual liberties. This reviewer has noticed that the number of Americans who do care is quite small. The book deals "The Dirty Dozen" cases and instances of abuse of government power, and the authors readily admit that this book could have been exponentially larger. This review will not cover all "The Dirty Dozen" examples which would make the review too tedious. However, the general scheme of the book will be examined.
The first example cited in this book dealt with the arbitrary laws that violated First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Free Press (1917-1918). U.S. authorities could make arrests and prosecutions for the most innocent remarks that could have been construed as critical of U.S. intervention into W.W. I. What was worse,the authors cited examples of official tattle tales who reported on neighbors'comments. As an aside, Messers Woods and Gutzman demolish the statement alleged by Pres. Woodrow Wilson who supposedly expressed regret for agreeing to the Declaraion of War. The authors clearly that the statement was fabricated by Wilson's sycophants who tried to cover Wilson's blunder. The basic constitutional point made my Messers Woods and Gutzman is that the First Amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law abridging the rights of Free Speech and Free Press. Yet, power hungry political hacks and unthinking Americans accepted all of this with little protest. One should note that the American people are so poorly read and so ready to believe media accounts that such oppressive laws are no longer necessary. The American media folks have so censored themselves that censorship laws are unnecessary. Too many Americans are too immune to truth and reason to notice.
Messers Woods and Gutzman had a good examination of Pres. Truman's attempt to seize American steel mills because labor union leaders wanted more than steel executives were willing to give. Truman's threat was made to curry favor with steel workers and increase wages. The U.S. Supreme Court Justices ruled against the Truman Administration. However, as Messers Woods and Gutzman noted, the ruling was not strong enough. Also they alerted readers that if a President could seize steel mills, he could also seize steel mills or any industry to REDUCE wages.
The chapters dealing with the civil rights cases were carefully researched and clear. The authors show that in an attempt to end discrimination, they only made it worse. School authorities were scolded because of the changing demographics. Civil rights laws which forbade assigning students to schools by race were ignored by federal judges who ordered busing to schools based on race. The consistently flawed federal rulings that changed almost overnight resulted in such confusion that court orders for busing had to end.
The chapter titled The Great Gold Robbery showed an arbitrary U.S. Government whose authorities went after law abiding citizens whose only crime was that they owned gold. This "legal" basis for this decision was that the federal authorities could do this under W.W. I laws about trading with the enemy (Today U.S. defined enemies change as often as one changes shirts). In other words, U.S. citizens who happened to own gold were suddenly enemies. Such arbitrary power needs no further comment.
This reviewer thought the chapter on "The Wall of Separation" was the weakest, but this chapter was still well written. As an aside, this reviewer is not offended if someone has a menorah or a creche on their premises. If Christians wish me a Merry Christmas or Jews wish me Happy Hanukkah, this reviewer is not offended and accepts the statements in the spirit in which such comments are made. If Hindus or Moslems offter greetings, again, such statements are accepted as gestures of good will.
Messers Woods and Gutzman stated that the people in the states should determine public school or any public display of religious symbols. What should have been considered is that some state authorities can use their power to coerce of intimidate those of a different religion. In other words, state authorities can be as oppressive as federal authorities. Too often legal cases reach the courts because, for example, some school official or coach will demean or intimidate anyone who has different religious convictions. However, the chapter has merit because of "overkill" by those opposed to any religious symbols in public places.
The chapter on military conscription was very good. Messers Woods and Gutzman provided substantial research that the Founding Fathers and early National political leaders were opposed to a national military conscription which started in Europe. The quatation of Danial Webster on the floor of Congress rejecting a draft is worth noting. Readers should note that many who want military conscription want it for everyone else except themselves. Walter Lippman promoted military conscription until he realized he too could be conscripted. He managed to get cushy government while exhorting other Americans to risk their lives (a real hero here). The former U.S. House member Andy Jacobs called such cowards, who want wars but want others to do the killing and the dying, war wimps and chicken hawks. Mr. Jacobs was a decorated Marine during the Korean War.
The chapter titled "Do Americans have a Constitutional Duty to Suffer?" is a good example of judicial stupiidty and bureaucratic nonsense. This chapter cites federal attempts to stop people who are suffering from using medical marijuana. The unreasonable judicial rulings stated that home-grown marijuana could be eliminated by the power of the Interstate Commerece Clause of the Constitution. Since the plants were used for immediate medical use per physicians' prescriptions, the illogic of using the plants could affect interstate commerice is obvious.
The chapters dealing with excutive orders, war powers, and signing statements are ominous. Messers Woods and Gutzman carefully demonstrated that such powers are unconstitutional and lawful. Executive orders began with the administration of the Pres. Theodore Roosevelt when he granted diplomatic recognition to a country when the U.S. Senate refused to do so. Pres. Theodore Roosevelt simply used a different phrase via executive order. The chapter titled "The phony Case for Presidental War Power" offers a stinging rebuke of a law clerk and later government "Justice" Dept. offical name Yoo. Yoo wrote a poorly reasoned law review article which stated that the U.S. President can use his war powers to send combat forces anywhere any time he damned well pleases. The Constitution history and warnings of the Founding Fathers are well cited in this section. The chapter on signing statements would be amusing if not so dangerous. Messers Woods and Gutzman give precise ecamples of how signing statements, which only express a president's disapproval of a section of a bill, have been recently used to violate the law especially duirng the Clinton and Bush administrations. To use signing statements as pretext to violate the law is unconstitutional and illegal. An opinion is not a constitutional power to break the law.
The last chapter titled "Can Anything Be Done?" is not hopeful at all. When most Americans are concerned about what dress some celebrity is wearing, the abuses of the Constitution will never get corrected. As this reviewer has stated elsewhere, the American people have raised thoughtlessness to a virtue.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
31 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Constitutionally speaking ..., July 15, 2008
This review is from: Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (Hardcover)
So, our bedrock creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Our rights are unalienable and originate from the creator and/or our status as human beings. The only reason we need a written constitution is to make some of these rights plain to the power-hungry idiots we put in charge of government affairs. The authors do a great job of describing what the original intent of several articles in the constitution were and how they have been corrupted through the years.
To say that current and future generations should feel free to reinterpret the constitution as seems best to them is fatuous. There is a perfectly sound constitutional method for amending same when the various articles go "out of date" or new interpretations are needed: constitutional amendments. For example, the fourth amendment has been (or should have been) much in the news lately: the right to be secure from unreasonable search. If the govt thought that the law is too restrictive for modern times, they could have proposed changes in the form of an amendment. But they did not and simply broke the law and, when discovered, had congress pass an ex-post facto law "legalising" what they had done. This is precisely what is indeed killing the constitution.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
17 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Pathologists' report on the Republic, July 25, 2008
This review is from: Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (Hardcover)
I sometimes think that in an era when "history" means who won last season's American Idol, one of the hardest things to get people to understand is that the assault on the American Constitution didn't begin with George W. Bush. The systematic attempt to expand and centralize State power at the expense of individual liberty goes much farther back in our past ... probably to the very adoption of the Constitution in place of the Articles of Confederation, but at least, as Thomas Woods and Kevin Gutzman argue, to the first world war. Indeed, as I saw someone express it recently, George W. Bush is a pro-bono attorney for the ACLU compared to that true monster, Woodrow Wilson.
So that's the first thing about "Who Killed the Constitution?": the authors' well-grounded historical viewpoint. The second is their research and documentation. It would be one thing to disregard them as ideologists if all they were doing was huffing and puffing like a Fox News pundit. But for them to marshal facts and citations and many, many quotations, as they do, makes this not pontificating but important investigative history. Discounting the seriousness of their argument would require ... well, exactly what has been happening for that last century or so ... the bald-faced denial of the evidence of our senses and reason. But if the rational reader can't see through that after a few hours in these pages, then I'm not sure what more we can do.
Of course, I'm not entirely sure what we can do anyway. I was all set to write that I wished I shared the authors' belief that Something Can Be Done, that the Republic is salvageable, and what's been lost can be regained. I had even prepared to title my review something like "A great book, heartbreakingly irrelevant."
I should have paid more attention to the title.
You see, the authors are not asking *whether* the Constitution is dead. They know it is. It was murdered by presidents, legislators, and jurists who sought Constitutional cover to create a veil of legitimacy around what they had already planned to do. Once they've come up with the arguments in which to clothe their intentions (the Constitution's "capacity for adaptation is indefinitely flexible," Justice George Sutherland wrote in 1919 [p. 162]), they lift the Constitution into the air like a shamanistic totem and the rest of us fall into line, hand over heart, like they knew we would.
Imperial ipsedixitism triumphs again.
So then what's left for the remnant? To their credit, the authors are more skilled than I at avoiding resignation. They write in their final paragraph that it's up to the American people to decide what to do with the information here presented. As I asked in my review of Woods' 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, what if they're right? Whether this great book does in fact turn out to be heart-breakingly irrelevant is one, I suppose, that will only be answered in hindsight.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
