Reviews for The Complete Idiot's Guide to the US Constitution

The average rating for The Complete Idiot's Guide to the US Constitution based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2008-12-27 00:00:00 Stephen Corak This is a competent book but which gives a false sense that American democracy "continues to work" as Timothy Harper writes, but the sad truth is that America is broken, dysfunctional, corrupt, partisan, gridlocked, and unable to cope with looming threats. This book can help Americans wanting to learn how to cope with an increasingly intrusive government. It has practical advice for dealing with police and courts. It is well-written, clear and concise. It's a good reference, factually correct. Further, the nice hard cover has a second crease, making it durable yet easy to keep open. But a pernicious flaw with this book is this: people who read it lightly probably won't get how broken American democracy is. They'll think everything is fine. The text hints at serious problems but you have to carefully ferret them out. The book is like a real estate broker dutifully touting a house's updated kitchen and manicured lawns while omitting the fact that it's on an earthquake fault. I don't think Timothy Harper intended this oversight. He's a clear-thinking and knowledgeable lawyer who fulfilled a pre-assigned task of explaining to ordinary people how to avoid getting their hair caught in the law's gears. The result is a compact guide for an out-of-towner -- here's America's legal system, accept it as given, learn these quick rules, stay out of trouble, and get back to more interesting sightseeing. There is practical advice about how to handle encounters with police and courts -- "if the police stop you on the street and you push back physically, or if you are disrespectful verbally, you probably will be arrested." If arrested, keep quiet. It's basic stuff. It's not a history lesson, but a snapshot of today's Constitution -- not the 1787 document but rather "society's agreement to live under the rule of law" as Harper understands the Constitution. While there are helpful references to previous rulings, the focus is working within the Constitutional framework today. Because it's a snapshot, there is little focus on the continuing deterioration of personal liberty and the gradually expanding power of the federal government. It misses how American democracy has decayed substantially. It's like a tour guide of Liberty Park, pointing out trees and ponds, but downplaying the park's dwindling acreage over two hundred years. Before the American Revolution, citizen participation in New England town meetings was vibrant; today, in contrast, participation is practically non-existent. Americans are apathetic, frustrated consumers with little connection to local government, not real citizens (Harper mentions that the Constitution doesn't define citizenship which I see as a serious constitutional defect.) Only half the electorate bothers to do the minimal citizenship task of voting. Here's one example of how the snapshot approach can gloss over long term deterioration. Harper mentions the eminent domain case of Kelo v. New London (2005), in which private property was seized by city authorities for a competing private use. The Supreme Court nodded (a 5-4 decision.) Harper presents this snapshot as one more issue for future controversy, but doesn't emphasize how this is a serious erosion of our Fifth amendment rights. The Supreme Court often comes off as Lone Ranger, protecting rights of criminal defendants. Since half of the text focuses on the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, there are plenty of situations in which the Court intervenes to protect the rights of the accused such as the Miranda v. Arizona (1966) decision. But there is little emphasis on the Court's complicity in shifting power away from states to the federal government. In numerous rulings, including creative interpretations of the Commerce Clause, the Court undermined states' regulatory authority. The result is not what the Framers would have intended. In Tocqueville's sense of federalism, the bulk of regulation should be done by state governments because they're in tune with residents' needs; but each state, by itself, is weak militarily, so it's wise to combine states under a national umbrella for protection. So an ideal federal arrangement combines small-state regulatory smarts with the safety of size. What's happened today is that Washington manages much of the economy, but clumsily, and the result is a bloated federal bureaucracy, a labyrinthine tax code, partisanship interfering with foreign policy, gridlock, ineffective state governments, a dangerous concentration of power in the presidency, inability to confront serious looming problems (financial meltdown, global warming, nuclear terrorism), horrendous corruption, and the Supreme Court deserves much blame for creating this mess. Further, the Supreme Court is highly politicized. Politicization began with Marshall's 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision which usurped the power of striking down legislative acts if deemed "unconstitutional"; in effect, the Supreme Court assumed for itself the power to discipline the legislature. Most constitutional scholars agree the Framers never intended for the Court to have such sweeping power (some even think the decision, itself, was illegal.) Harper notes recent controversial cases (Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore) and hints at their activist nature but doesn't emphasize that the Court is acting like a legislature. British constitutional scholar Adam Tomkins suggests that the judiciary is ill-suited for the role of reining in the government for several reasons, including the fact that it must wait for relevant lesser court cases to bubble up before it can act. There are cogent easy-to-read critical analyses, notably Kevin R. C. Gutzman's excellent "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" -- a sharper book than this one. There are helpful glimpses of future hot-button issues such as balancing the budget, gun control, abortion, affirmative action, eminent domain, crime & punishment, presidential power, citizen surveillance, and prosecution of terrorists. Harper's pointing out the unconstitutional nature of presidential signing statements suggests he is aware of severe problems ahead, and that if he had been given a different assignment, perhaps a more critical and accurate warning would have emerged from his word processor. I think America will be unable to cope with the problem of nuclear terrorism without substantial revision of the Constitution, and for those interested, read my book "Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism" (Amazon & Kindle, 184 pages.) And therefore I am summoning delegates to a Second Constitutional Convention to meet in Independence Hall in Philadelphia beginning July 4th, 2009. Overall, a helpful guide but which obscures substantial deterioration in liberty and glosses over serious constitutional problems. It delivers on the basics. It's descriptive, not critical, but given the peculiar challenges facing America today, I find it unintentionally misleading because it may lull unthinking Americans into a false sense that nothing is wrong.

Review # 2 was written on 2020-03-01 00:00:00 Brigette Mcnew Good overview of the Constitution and includes a copy of it at the end.