Ratings4
Average rating4.1
In America’s Constitution, one of this era’s most accomplished constitutional law scholars, Akhil Reed Amar, gives the first comprehensive account of one of the world’s great political texts. Incisive, entertaining, and occasionally controversial, this “biography” of America’s framing document explains not only what the Constitution says but also why the Constitution says it. We all know this much: the Constitution is neither immutable nor perfect. Amar shows us how the story of this one relatively compact document reflects the story of America more generally. (For example, much of the Constitution, including the glorious-sounding “We the People,” was lifted from existing American legal texts, including early state constitutions.) In short, the Constitution was as much a product of its environment as it was a product of its individual creators’ inspired genius. Despite the Constitution’s flaws, its role in guiding our republic has been nothing short of amazing. Skillfully placing the document in the context of late-eighteenth-century American politics, America’s Constitution explains, for instance, whether there is anything in the Constitution that is unamendable; the reason America adopted an electoral college; why a president must be at least thirty-five years old; and why–for now, at least–only those citizens who were born under the American flag can become president. From his unique perspective, Amar also gives us unconventional wisdom about the Constitution and its significance throughout the nation’s history. For one thing, we see that the Constitution has been far more democratic than is conventionally understood. Even though the document was drafted by white landholders, a remarkably large number of citizens (by the standards of 1787) were allowed to vote up or down on it, and the document’s later amendments eventually extended the vote to virtually all Americans. We also learn that the Founders’ Constitution was far more slavocratic than many would acknowledge: the “three fifths” clause gave the South extra political clout for every slave it owned or acquired. As a result, slaveholding Virginians held the presidency all but four of the Republic’s first thirty-six years, and proslavery forces eventually came to dominate much of the federal government prior to Lincoln’s election. Ambitious, even-handed, eminently accessible, and often surprising, America’s Constitution is an indispensable work, bound to become a standard reference for any student of history and all citizens of the United States.
Reviews with the most likes.
Phenomenal book. This book comprises a daring attempt to give a holistic account of the U.S. Constitution. For a book that gets in the weeds of law and American history, it manages to be a page turner. Despite being written twenty years ago, the book bears relevance to the issues of today.
Short Review: This was fascinating, detail, occasionally boring and still left me wanting more with some areas. I spend five months slowly working through this. There is about 450 pages of main content, which did feel both too long and not long enough. There is so much that could be written. But in an overview, you cannot talk about everything.
What is most helpful is that Amar uses history, comparative legal analysis (with state constitutions, English common law and notes from drafts), legal history from court cases and political science analysis of what was possible to have been based based on political realities on the ground. This is more than just an analysis of what is in the constitution. That is here as well, but the parts around what is in the constitution is helpful to give context to the actual content.
I think the best sections are the sections on the role and politics of slavery. That analysis is was very helpful to understanding not only the sections on 3/5 clause but the politics around other compromises that were impacted by slavery.
It is a bit dry in places. But I am not sure that large sections of the book, could have been cut without harming the larger flow. I did think as I was reading it that it could have been re-organized in places. There was a fair amount of repetition that could have been cut. But most of those repetitive sections made sense if someone was trying to read different areas of the constitution instead of reading the book as a whole straight through.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/americas-constitution/