About book The Politically Incorrect Guide To The Constitution (2007)
Audiobook.Audio: Excellent. Clear, well-enunciated, easy to understand. The narrator does read fairly quickly. I didn't do much rewinding but due to the interesting subject matter and innumerable cases mentioned I will be listening to this book many times.Content: EDUCATIONAL. Was there ever a time "The Supremes" didn't legislate from the bench? Did they EVER adhere to the Constitution other than its' legend as perceived "in their own minds"? Sigh. "What hath God wraught?" It's a wonder we retain ANY inalienable rights anymore, but that was the DOI, wasn't it? The subject matter is presented in a manner that holds ones' interest. Since it is a P.I.G. book there is a moderate amount of sarcasm, but only as appropriate. I highly recommend this book for those with a personal interest in either America history or their own future in America.Additional comments: The P.I. Guides I’ve read tend to have a conservative, responsible individual approach, as opposed to populist or socialist leanings. And the P.I.G.s are all loaded with facts. Though not new, this book pointed out in more detail how the Constitution has been subject to interpretation from day one. It notes early on how in the 1700’s “states” were “countries”, not regions of a ‘higher power’ country. Some wanted centralist, big brother big government, some wanted state rights to be paramount. The Supremes have been legislating from the bench (creating laws instead of judging them) from day one, and whatever they say they are determined to be the SUPREME word on any subject. The whims and follies they’ve exercised make one wonder we have any liberty left at all. The book also notes how law is taught via the case method, not by reading and exploring the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other early documents from which our country was created. Great, learn from see-sawing interpretations throughout history, original intention be damned.
Very good book if interested in some historical details you will not have learned in the public schools (well, unless you had a renegade teacher ;).Because of the marketing approach of the “Politically Incorrect” series, I thought it would be more at the dumbed-down level like the “XX for Dummies” books or “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to XX” books. However, this book (and presumably the series) does not assume an ignorant reader.That’s not bad. But just knowing that going into it would’ve been helpful.All in all I enjoyed the read. Once you get about halfway into it you realize it’s going to be the same thing with every chapter. Basically:“In this period of history, these guys completely ignored [or didn’t consult, or didn’t interpret according to normal rational principles of interpretation] the Constitution.”There are a lot of great details to be sure, but the gist is the same throughout.Again - that’s not to downplay the book at all. It’s really more an indictment of our country’s leaders than anything else - that at virtually every point in our history (even during the formulation of the Constitution) the corrupt nature of man showed its power hungry self in trying to centralize the sovereignty of the States by giving the Federal government more power.Nonetheless, these are things people really should know. I wish I would’ve known them much earlier in my life - along with all the other state-indoctrinated fellow students of mine who went to the same public school. Perhaps if you know these things (either by reading this book and/or others on the subject) at some point a future generation of home or otherwise privately educated citizens will return the warped “powers” of the federal government back to the States and the People.I pray God helps us do just that!
Do You like book The Politically Incorrect Guide To The Constitution (2007)?
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, Or Why One May Legally Evade Taxes, Castrate Sodomites, and Whip Niggers is a bit of a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it's an impressive piece of political propaganda, the effectiveness of which will only be limited by its deeply condescending tone. (Recommended reading is helpfully pointed out in sections entitled "A Book You Are Not Supposed To Read.") On the other hand, the author lays out a very effective case for the notion that the entire structure of American government is illegitimate and that we only accept its presence due to a warped understanding of history. Unfortunately, Gutzman undercuts his credibility by exploring the implications of his findings when they coincide with Republican talking points, but not when they would contradict conservative positions. The narration is very choppy, but not really unpleasant.
—Thomas
I'm not yet complete but the author is all over the place in his bias. It is still thought provoking bringing up many cases that are not commonly referred upon.The format is set up nicely like the rest of the PIG books but it is at times hard to keep up as I continue chronologically. His lambasting phrases like "Justice Black's handiwork continues to shape our public schools, which now bear the imprint of an anti-Catholic Klansman who advanced the cause of left-liberal secularist." for up holding separation of church and state in Engel V Vitale as unconstitutional since nothing in restricted the states from setting up their own religion to be publicly funded.While insightful times like the above example recalls Jefferson's adage "We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
—Evan Farah
The bulk of this book is a history of bad Supreme Court decisions that violate the Constitution and its amendments. It's okay to read and occasionally interesting when the author illustrates just why the reasoning of the majority decision is nonsense or the decision doesn't make sense given other precedents it claims not to overturn. There's also a really good discussion in the middle of what the Civil War should be called (hint: not the Civil War, or even the War Between the States), as well as some informative discussion about what the founders really intended the Constitution to mean. The author also writes a really short ending with a brief idea of one way things could be changed to keep the Supreme Court in line with the Constitution and its explicit deference to the power of the states.While it's interesting to know about the history around dozens of famous Supreme Court cases (and to see more about why our high school Constitutional Law class kept deciding those cases differently than the Supreme Court did when we focused on the Constitution), this content is probably much more appealing to someone with law school training. It's probably not surprising that the author is a law school professor, and while it's interesting to hear that one reason the law has gotten so far away from the Constitution is because law students study previous cases and not the Constitution, it's hard for someone like me to really get into it.While I'm glad I read this book, I wish less focus had been placed on the Supreme Court (or the book had been titled "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court") and more time had been spent discussing how Congress and the Executive Branch have developed away from or towards the Constitution as well.
—Jacob
