Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (Hardcover)

by Thomas E. Woods Jr. (Author), Kevin R. C. Gutzman (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Review
“If you want to know why the federal government regulates the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the words you speak, read Who Killed the Constitution? . . . When the history of these unfree times is written, Tom Woods’s and Kevin Gutzman’s fearless work will be recognized as the standard against which all others are measured.”
–Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst and bestselling author of The Constitution in Exile

“It’s about time someone shouted out that the emperor has no clothes.”
–Kirkpatrick Sale, director of the Middlebury Institute and author of Human Scale

"Woods and Gutzman (two bestselling authors in thePolitically Incorrect Guide series) appeal to both left and right in this constitutionalist jeremiad. Liberals will agree about the unconstitutionality of the draft, warrantless wiretapping and presidential signing statements. Conservatives will agree about the unconstitutionality of school busing, bans on school prayer and Roosevelt's suspension of the gold standard. The common thread is the authors' brief for a federal government strictly limited to the powers explicitly granted by the Constitution. The authors' exegeses of the Constitution and court decisions, heavy on original intent arguments, are lucid and telling, but not always consistently supportive of liberty: their reading of the First Amendment implies that state governments may restrict speech, religion and the press. Their attack on expansive federal power-even federal spending on cancer research-is perhaps too successful; it inadvertently supports scholars like Daniel Lazare who argue that the Constitution is too antiquated, constraining and hard to change to keep up with a modern consensus on civil rights and good governance."
—Publishers Weekly


From the Hardcover edition. --This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

Review
“If you want to know why the federal government regulates the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the words you speak, read Who Killed the Constitution? . . . When the history of these unfree times is written, Tom Woods’s and Kevin Gutzman’s fearless work will be recognized as the standard against which all others are measured.”
–Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst and bestselling author of The Constitution in Exile

“It’s about time someone shouted out that the emperor has no clothes.”
–Kirkpatrick Sale, director of the Middlebury Institute and author of Human Scale

"Woods and Gutzman (two bestselling authors in thePolitically Incorrect Guide series) appeal to both left and right in this constitutionalist jeremiad. Liberals will agree about the unconstitutionality of the draft, warrantless wiretapping and presidential signing statements. Conservatives will agree about the unconstitutionality of school busing, bans on school prayer and Roosevelt's suspension of the gold standard. The common thread is the authors' brief for a federal government strictly limited to the powers explicitly granted by the Constitution. The authors' exegeses of the Constitution and court decisions, heavy on original intent arguments, are lucid and telling, but not always consistently supportive of liberty: their reading of the First Amendment implies that state governments may restrict speech, religion and the press. Their attack on expansive federal power-even federal spending on cancer research-is perhaps too successful; it inadvertently supports scholars like Daniel Lazare who argue that the Constitution is too antiquated, constraining and hard to change to keep up with a modern consensus on civil rights and good governance."
—Publishers Weekly

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 272 pages
• Publisher: Crown Forum (July 8, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0307405753
• ISBN-13: 978-0307405753
• Product Dimensions: 9.4 x 6.2 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.5 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars See all reviews (18 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #54,713 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #7 in	Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Political Science > Constitutional History
  #37 in	Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Political Science > United States > Executive Branch
  #50 in	Books > History > United States > 21st Century

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

42 of 42 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

By	James E. Egolf "James E. Egolf, MA" (Florida) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

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.

25 of 27 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Constitutionally speaking ..., July 15, 2008

By	Mr. Underhill (San Jose, CA USA) - See all my reviews

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.

15 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Constitution Revived!, July 19, 2008

By	Brian (Iowa) - See all my reviews

The Constitution has certainly been ignored by our elected officials. It can't be denied that the federal government is totally off the rails, doing whatever it wants to do despite the Constitution. It was probably human nature, the drive for more and more power, that killed it. Perhaps the document wasn't written and designed well enough to secure its main purpose: to bind the federal government to an assignment of expressly granted powers. Whatever happened, it certainly can be said that we are now living under a system which we never agreed to live under.

Here, Woods and Gutzman explore a series of constitutional subjects from WWI to the present. From presidents and congresses bound only by their own will, to federal judges legislating policy based only on personal preferences, the authors show just how much (dis)respect officials in Washington have for the Constitution. The chapter on gold was a new subject for me, and was truly scary.

From John Taylor of Caroline, to Raoul Berger, to Kevin Gutzman and Thomas Woods, there have always been true patriots exposing the total disjunct between what the federal government does and what the American people have actually agreed to let it do in the Constitution. The authors have revived the Constitution to a detectable pulse. Gutzman and Woods have given the American people the tools and knowledge to totally revive the Constitution, a revival that can bring back for ourselves self-government and the control of our own destiny.