This is a highly readable and powerful book on the implications of judicial abdication along with some ideas on how to develop a more engaged judiciary. Clark Neily III is a prosecutor and he makes his case in a clear and compelling manner by showing the implications to real individuals when the judiciary fails to do its job.
As he states in the Introduction: "This book is not about constitutional theory; it's about constitutional reality as experienced by ordinary people trying to live their lives free from unwarranted government interference." The stories he shares about individuals (examples include Susette Kelo, Sandy Meadows, and many others) who are tragically impacted by judicial abdication help bring key ideas and principles to life.
After a very good chapter on “constitutional law for ordinary people”, he discusses the need for "Judicial Engagement" which has 3 basic hallmarks:
1.) “Figuring out what end the government is actually pursuing and making sure that end is constitutionally legitimate”
2.) “Ensuring a reasonable fit between the government’s actual end and the means chosen to advance it”
3.) “Requiring the government to justify its actions with something more than ‘speculation and conjecture’”
He has very good chapters on the rational basis test, the 14th amendment (appropriately titled “Liberty Slaughtered”) and judicial abdication. He discusses several reasons why judges abdicate – one key point he identifies is that they have an unrealistic view of how policy is actually made (and he then discusses the importance of public choice theory for explaining what really happens).
Nealy demonstrates throughout the book that "Constitutional limits on government power are meaningless without judges to enforce them." He believes there is reason for optimism based on some recent decisions. He concludes with 4 principles of engaged judging while offering several ideas on how we can get a more engaged judiciary.
I recommend this important book for all of us who want to “secure the blessings of liberty” so that we can live our lives free from unwarranted government interference.
Additional Note – This book is a great complement to Timothy Sandefur's "The Conscience of the Constitution" and Randy Barnett's updated "Restoring the Lost Constitution" which give a more theoretical discussion and defense of the Constitution.
Other Sellers on Amazon
$9.99
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
Sold by:
mediaHand
Sold by:
mediaHand
(9054 ratings)
85% positive over last 12 months
85% positive over last 12 months
In stock.
Usually ships within 3 to 4 days.
Shipping rates
and
Return policy
Usually ships within 3 to 4 days.
$9.99
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
Sold by:
The Reading Nook - Texas
Sold by:
The Reading Nook - Texas
(25769 ratings)
72% positive over last 12 months
72% positive over last 12 months
In stock.
Usually ships within 3 to 4 days.
Shipping rates
and
Return policy
Usually ships within 3 to 4 days.
$9.99
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
Sold by:
Libraryly
Sold by:
Libraryly
(15267 ratings)
91% positive over last 12 months
91% positive over last 12 months
In stock.
Usually ships within 3 to 4 days.
Shipping rates
and
Return policy
Usually ships within 3 to 4 days.
Add to book club
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club?
Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Flip to back
Flip to front
Follow the Authors
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
OK
Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution's Promise of Limited Government Hardcover – October 8, 2013
by
Clark M. Neily III
(Author)
|
Clark M. Neily III
(Author)
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
|
|
Price
|
New from | Used from |
Enhance your purchase
-
Print length232 pages
-
LanguageEnglish
-
PublisherEncounter Books
-
Publication dateOctober 8, 2013
-
Dimensions6.5 x 1 x 9.5 inches
-
ISBN-101594036969
-
ISBN-13978-1594036965
Inspire a love of reading with Amazon Book Box for Kids
Discover delightful children's books with Amazon Book Box, a subscription that delivers new books every 1, 2, or 3 months — new Amazon Book Box Prime customers receive 15% off your first box. Sign up now
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
-
Apple
-
Android
-
Windows Phone
-
Android
|
Download to your computer
|
Kindle Cloud Reader
|
Frequently bought together
Editorial Reviews
Review
Clark Neily’s elegant essay slays the idea that judicial restraint’ is always a virtue. It often amounts to judicial abdication. Neily explains that judges must judge to defend the rights that government exists to secure.”
George F. Will
Through the use of compelling real-world cases and remarkably clear, accessible and accurate explanations of current law, Clark Neily exposes the legal charade by which, in the name of restraint,’ judges have stacked the deck in favor of those who use laws and regulations to line their own pockets. Required reading for all who care about their liberties and the Constitution that is supposed to protect them.”
Randy Barnett, Professor at Georgetown Law School
Provocative yet fair-minded, this book is essential reading for anyone who cares about our courts, our Constitution, or our country.”
Kermit Roosevelt, Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School
Clark Neily weaves constitutional analysis with anecdotes in service of large principle. His basic principle is that a squishy policy of judicial deference disserves his clients, the public at large, and the critical role of judicial oversight in a democracy. He is right on all counts. A great read for lawyers and nonlawyers interested in the real-world consequences of judicial decision making.”
Richard Epstein, Professor at the New York University School of Law
About the Author
Clark M. Neily III is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, where he litigates constitutional cases involving economic liberty, property rights, free speech, and school choice. He is also director of the Institute’s Center for Judicial Engagement, and he writes, speaks, and debates frequently about the importance of constitutionally limited government. In his private capacity, Neily represented the plaintiffs in District of Columbia v. Heller, the historic case in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.
Start reading Terms of Engagement on your Kindle in under a minute.
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Product details
- Publisher : Encounter Books (October 8, 2013)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 232 pages
- ISBN-10 : 1594036969
- ISBN-13 : 978-1594036965
- Item Weight : 1.03 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.5 x 1 x 9.5 inches
-
Best Sellers Rank:
#709,667 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #115 in Judicial System
- #306 in Courts & Law
- #329 in United States Judicial Branch
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
4.7 out of 5 stars
4.7 out of 5
53 global ratings
How are ratings calculated?
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on January 19, 2014
Verified Purchase
4 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on April 29, 2014
Verified Purchase
Growing up a "conservative" I watch unchecked judicial activism and an "ends justify the means" approach, to constitutional law, especially from the appointees of Lyndon Johnson.
In response, the Regan administration set out to change the federal courts by appointing younger judges who believed in "judicial restraint." I used to think this was good until Clark Neily's book "Terms of Engagement" confirmed what I had been silently thinking for the past decade: If liberal judicial activists turned the nation (through their opinions in cases) in a direction which is not consistent with the Constitution isn't it the duty of the federal judge's of today to be "judicial activist" for the Constitution and correct wrongly decided issues when they are presented with them?
The book points out that "conservatives" are caught in a quandary as they claim to want judges to exercise "judicial restraint" yet who needs restraint when citizens constitutional rights are being violated? Should a court just throw up its hand and say: "That's their business not ours" as the Supreme Court said to the U.S. Military regarding the detainment of Japanese-Americans in the Korematsu case?
Mr. Neily uses many of the cases that he has actually litigated to show how the Court "hands off" or "judicial restraint' hurts (and kills) real people.
If you are a "conservative" or profess to believe in limited government, Mr. Neily's book will make you realize that all the Courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, are not doing their duty to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States..."
Mr. Neily has first hand experience litigating many constitutional law cases having been co-counsel in Heller v. District of Columbia.
In response, the Regan administration set out to change the federal courts by appointing younger judges who believed in "judicial restraint." I used to think this was good until Clark Neily's book "Terms of Engagement" confirmed what I had been silently thinking for the past decade: If liberal judicial activists turned the nation (through their opinions in cases) in a direction which is not consistent with the Constitution isn't it the duty of the federal judge's of today to be "judicial activist" for the Constitution and correct wrongly decided issues when they are presented with them?
The book points out that "conservatives" are caught in a quandary as they claim to want judges to exercise "judicial restraint" yet who needs restraint when citizens constitutional rights are being violated? Should a court just throw up its hand and say: "That's their business not ours" as the Supreme Court said to the U.S. Military regarding the detainment of Japanese-Americans in the Korematsu case?
Mr. Neily uses many of the cases that he has actually litigated to show how the Court "hands off" or "judicial restraint' hurts (and kills) real people.
If you are a "conservative" or profess to believe in limited government, Mr. Neily's book will make you realize that all the Courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, are not doing their duty to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States..."
Mr. Neily has first hand experience litigating many constitutional law cases having been co-counsel in Heller v. District of Columbia.
3 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Pages with related products.
See and discover other items: term papers
