high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale
high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale__front
high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale__after

Description

Product Description

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.

About the Author

Akhil Reed Amar graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School, and has been a member of the Yale Law School faculty since 1985. He is the author of The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction and has written widely on constitutional issues for The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times. He lives in Woodbridge, Connecticut, with his wife and three children.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Chapter 1

In the Beginning

The Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser (September 19, 1787).

When, after a summer of closed meetings in Philadelphia, America’s leading statesmen went public with their proposed Constitution on September 17, 1787, newspapers rushed to print the proposal in its entirety. In several printings, the dramatic words of the Preamble appeared in particularly large type.



It started with a bang. Ordinary citizens would govern themselves across a continent and over the centuries, under rules that the populace would ratify and could revise. By uniting previously independent states into a vast and indivisible nation, New World republicans would keep Old World monarchs at a distance and thus make democracy work on a scale never before dreamed possible.

“We . . . do”

With simple words placed in the document’s most prominent location, the Preamble laid the foundation for all that followed. “We the People of the United States, . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution . . .”

These words did more than promise popular self-government. They also embodied and enacted it. Like the phrases “I do” in an exchange of wedding vows and “I accept” in a contract, the Preamble’s words actually performed the very thing they described. Thus the Founders’ “Constitution” was not merely a text but a deed—a constituting. We the People do ordain. In the late 1780s, this was the most democratic deed the world had ever seen.

Behind this act of ordainment and establishment stood countless ordinary American voters who gave their consent to the Constitution via specially elected ratifying conventions held in the thirteen states beginning in late 1787. Until these ratifications took place, the Constitution’s words were a mere proposal—the text of a contract yet to be accepted, the script of a wedding still to be performed.

The proposal itself had emerged from a special conclave held in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. Twelve state governments—all except Rhode Island’s—had tapped several dozen leading public servants and private citizens to meet in Philadelphia and ponder possible revisions of the Articles of Confederation, the interstate compact that Americans had formed during the Revolutionary War. After deliberating behind closed doors for months, the Philadelphia conferees unveiled their joint proposal in mid-September in a document signed by thirty-nine of the continent’s most eminent men, including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, Roger Sherman, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, John Rutledge, and Nathaniel Gorham. When these notables put their names on the page, they put their reputations on the line.

An enormous task of political persuasion lay ahead. Several of the leaders who had come to Philadelphia had quit the conclave in disgust, and others who had stayed to the end had refused to endorse the final script. Such men—John Lansing, Robert Yates, Luther Martin, John Francis Mercer, Edmund Randolph, George Mason, and Elbridge Gerry—could be expected to oppose ratification and to urge their political allies to do the same. No one could be certain how the American people would ultimately respond to the competing appeals. Prior to 1787, only two states, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, had ever brought proposed state constitutions before the people to be voted up or down in some special way. The combined track record from this pair of states was sobering: two successful popular ratifications out of six total attempts.

In the end, the federal Constitution proposed by Washington and company would barely squeak through. By its own terms, the document would go into effect only if ratified by specially elected conventions in at least nine states, and even then only states that said yes would be bound. In late 1787 and early 1788, supporters of the Constitution won relatively easy ratifications in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut. Massachusetts joined their ranks in February 1788, saying “we do” only after weeks of debate and by a close vote, 187 to 168. Then came lopsided yes votes in Maryland and South Carolina, bringing the total to eight ratifications, one shy of the mark. Even so, in mid-June 1788, a full nine months after the publication of the Philadelphia proposal, the Constitution was still struggling to be born, and its fate remained uncertain. Organized opposition ran strong in all the places that had yet to say yes, which included three of America’s largest and most influential states. At last, on June 21, tiny New Hampshire became the decisive ninth state by the margin of 57 to 47. A few days later, before news from the North had arrived, Virginia voted her approval, 89 to 79.

All eyes then turned to New York, where Anti-Federalists initially held a commanding lead inside the convention. Without the acquiescence of this key state, could the new Constitution really work as planned? On the other hand, was New York truly willing to say no and go it alone now that her neighbors had agreed to form a new, more perfect union among themselves? In late July, the state ultimately said yes by a vote of 30 to 27. A switch of only a couple of votes would have reversed the outcome. Meanwhile, the last two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, refused to ratify in 1788. They would ultimately join the new union in late 1789 and mid-1790, respectively—well after George Washington took office as president of the new (eleven!) United States.

Although the ratification votes in the several states did not occur by direct statewide referenda, the various ratifying conventions did aim to represent “the People” in a particularly emphatic way—more directly than ordinary legislatures. Taking their cue from the Preamble’s bold “We the People” language, several states waived standard voting restrictions and allowed a uniquely broad class of citizens to vote for ratification-convention delegates. For instance, New York temporarily set aside its usual property qualifications and, for the first time in its history, invited all free adult male citizens to vote.1 Also, states generally allowed an especially broad group of Americans to serve as ratifying-convention delegates. Among the many states that ordinarily required upper-house lawmakers to meet higher property qualifications than lower-house members, none held convention delegates to the higher standard, and most exempted delegates even from the lower. All told, eight states elected convention delegates under special rules that were more populist and less property-focused than normal, and two others followed standing rules that let virtually all taxpaying adult male citizens vote. No state employed spe-cial election rules that were more property-based or less populist than normal.

In the extraordinarily extended and inclusive ratification process envisioned by the Preamble, Americans regularly found themselves discussing the Preamble itself. At Philadelphia, the earliest draft of the Preamble had come from the quill of Pennsylvania’s James Wilson,3 and it was Wilson who took the lead in explaining the Preamble’s principles in a series of early and influential ratification speeches. Pennsylvania Anti-Federalists complained that the Philadelphia notables had overreached in proposing an entirely new Constitution rather than a mere modification of the existing Articles of Confederation. In response, Wilson—America’s leading lawyer and one of only six men to have signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—stressed the significance of popular ratification. “This Constitution, proposed by [the Philadelphia draftsmen], claims no more than a production of the same nature would claim, flowing from a private pen. It is laid before the citizens of the United States, unfettered by restraint. . . . By their fiat, it will become of value and authority; without it, it will never receive the character of authenticity and power.”4 James Madison agreed, as he made clear in a mid-January 1788 New York newspaper essay today known as The Federalist No. 40—one of a long series of columns that he wrote in partnership with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay under the shared pen name “Publius.” According to Madison/Publius, the Philadelphia draftsmen had merely “proposed a Constitution which is to be of no more consequence than the paper on which it is written, unless it be stamped with the approbation of those to whom it is addressed. [The proposal] was to be submitted to the people themselves, [and] the disapprobation of this supreme authority would destroy it forever; its approbation blot out antecedent errors and irregu-larities.” Leading Federalists across the continent reiterated the point in similar language.

With the word fiat, Wilson gently called to mind the opening lines of Genesis. In the beginning, God said, fiat lux, and—behold!—there was light. So, too, when the American people (Publius’s “supreme authority”) said, “We do ordain and establish,” that very statement would do the deed. “Let there be a Constitution”—and there would be one. As the ulti-mate sovereign of all had once made man in his own image, so now the temporal sovereign of America, the people themselves, would make a constitution in their own image.

All this was breathtakingly novel. In 1787, democratic self-government existed almost nowhere on earth. Kings, emperors, czars, princes, sultans, moguls, feudal lords, and tribal chiefs held sway across the globe. Even England featured a limited monarchy and an entrenched aristocracy alongside a House of Commons that rested on a restricted and uneven electoral base. The vaunted English Constitution that American colonists had grown up admiring prior to the struggle for independence was an imprecise hodgepodge of institutions, enactments, cases, usages, maxims, procedures, and principles that had accreted and evolved over many centuries. This Constitution had never been reduced to a single composite writing and voted on by the British people or even by Parliament.

The ancient world had seen small-scale democracies in various Greek city-states and pre-imperial Rome, but none of these had been founded in fully democratic fashion. In the most famous cases, one man—a celebrated lawgiver such as Athens’s Solon or Sparta’s Lycurgus—had unilaterally ordained his countrymen’s constitution. Before the American Revolution, no people had ever explicitly voted on their own written constitution.

Nor did the Revolution itself immediately inaugurate popular ordainments and establishments. True, the 1776 Declaration of Independence proclaimed the “self-evident” truth that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” The document went on to assert that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of [its legitimate] Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter and abolish it, and to institute new Government.” Yet the Declaration only imperfectly acted out its bold script. Its fifty-six acclaimed signers never put the document to any sort of popular vote.

Between April and July 1776, countless similar declarations issued from assorted towns, counties, parishes, informal assemblies, grand juries, militia units, and legislatures across America.8 By then, however, the colonies were already under military attack, and conditions often made it impossible to achieve inclusive deliberation or scrupulous tabulation. Many patriots saw Crown loyalists in their midst not as fellow citizens free to vote their honest judgment with impunity, but rather as traitors deserving tar and feathers, or worse. (Virtually no arch-loyalist went on to become a particularly noteworthy political leader in independent America. By contrast, many who would vigorously oppose the Constitution in 1787–88—such as Maryland’s Samuel Chase and Luther Martin, Virginia’s Patrick Henry and James Monroe, and New York’s George Clinton and John Lansing—moved on to illustrious post-ratification careers.

Shortly before and after the Declaration of Independence, new state governments began to take shape, filling the void created by the ouster of George III. None of the state constitutions ordained in the first months of the Revolution was voted on by the electorate or by a specially elected ratifying convention of the people. In many states, sitting legislatures or closely analogous Revolutionary entities declared themselves solons and promulgated or revised constitutions on their own authority, sometimes without even waiting for new elections that might have given their constituents more say in the matter, or at least advance notice of their specific constitutional intentions.

In late 1777, patriot leaders in the Continental Congress proposed a set of Articles of Confederation to govern relations among the thirteen states. This document was then sent out to be ratified by the thirteen state legislatures, none of which asked the citizens themselves to vote in any special way on the matter.

Things began to change as the Revolution wore on. In 1780, Massachusetts enacted a new state constitution that had come directly before the voters assembled in their respective townships and won their approval. In 1784, New Hampshire did the same. These local dress rehearsals (for so they seem in retrospect) set the stage for the Preamble’s great act of continental popular sovereignty in the late 1780s.

As Benjamin Franklin and other Americans had achieved famous advances in the natural sciences—in Franklin’s case, the invention of bifocals, the lightning rod, and the Franklin stove—so with the Constitution America could boast a breakthrough in political science. Never be-fore had so many ordinary people been invited to deliberate and vote on the supreme law under which they and their posterity would be governed. James Wilson fairly burst with pride in an oration delivered in Philadelphia to some twenty thousand merrymakers gathered for a grand parade on July 4, 1788. By that date, enough Americans had said “We do” so as to guarantee that the Constitution would go into effect (at least in ten states—the document was still pending in the other three). The “spectacle, which we are assembled to celebrate,” Wilson declared, was “the most dignified one that has yet appeared on our globe,” namely, a people free and enlightened, establishing and ratifying a system of government, which they have previously considered, examined, and approved! . . .

. . . You have heard of Sparta, of Athens, and of Rome; you have heard of their admired constitutions, and of their high-prized free-dom. . . . But did they, in all their pomp and pride of liberty, ever furnish, to the astonished world, an exhibition similar to that which we now contemplate? Were their constitutions framed by those, who were appointed for that purpose, by the people? After they were framed, were they submitted to the consideration of the people? Had the people an opportunity of expressing their sentiments concerning them? Were they to stand or fall by the people’s approving or rejecting vote?

The great deed was done. The people had taken center stage and enacted their own supreme law.

Product information

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Videos

Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video!
Upload video
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Customers who bought this item also bought

Customer reviews

4.7 out of 54.7 out of 5
307 global ratings

Top reviews from the United States

RumLovingPyrat
5.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
Outstanding work
Reviewed in the United States on August 12, 2015
Wow. That''s all I can say about this tremendous treatment of the Constitution and its history. Akhil Amar has written the definitive textual analysis of the Constitution. His arguments are clear and incisive, and his copious notes, both within the text itself and in end... See more
Wow. That''s all I can say about this tremendous treatment of the Constitution and its history. Akhil Amar has written the definitive textual analysis of the Constitution. His arguments are clear and incisive, and his copious notes, both within the text itself and in end notes at the rear of the book, provide a wealth of excellent source material for further research. Professor Amar brilliantly showcases the strengths and weaknesses of the document, and brings to life the energetic debates surrounding its ratification and amendments.

Readers should be warned though -- this is not a book for beginners. The author presumes (and given what he is trying to do here, rightly so) that the reader has pursued some study of both American history and the U.S. Constitution. Readers should have a decent familiarity with both before reading this. That being said, if you are looking for a deep, rich look at the history and meaning of the Constitution, this book is a must buy.
17 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report
Joseph Ryan
5.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
Focusing on the Constitution''s Contemporary Scene
Reviewed in the United States on October 13, 2013
The U.S. Constitution is a huge subject, and Prof. Amar contributes in this book by keeping a focus on the ideas and debates that led up to or were contemporary with adoption of each of the Constitution''s clauses. It touches on virtually every phrase. A reader... See more
The U.S. Constitution is a huge subject, and Prof. Amar contributes in this book by keeping a focus on the ideas and debates that led up to or were contemporary with adoption of each of the Constitution''s clauses. It touches on virtually every phrase.

A reader might come to the book looking for other things that Prof. Amar does not try to provide: in particular, lessons from his analysis of then-contemporary debates that might be useful for now-contemporary debates.

For example, on Presidential impeachment, Prof. Amar discusses the phrase "Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," noting that "high" was not used in the Constitution to describe the standard for impeachment of other officials, and noting that treason and bribery set the standard for what is referred to by the general terms "crimes and misdemeanors," etc. He closes by using Andrew Johnson''s acquittal to illustrate. Period, end of story. I mean, what else could a reader from today''s generation want to hear about, regarding standards for Presidential impeachment? (Good grief.)

In my case, I was interested in what the Founders thought about "enumeration," both in the sense of "census" (which the book does not touch on) and in the sense of enumerated and unenumerated rights. On the latter, Prof. Amar is clear: "While this book has focused on the written and enacted Constitution, I myself do not believe that all of American constitutionalism can be deduced simply from the document. At key points the text itself seems to gesture outward, reminding readers of the importance of unenumerated rights above and beyond textually enumerated ones. Thus we need at least one more book to start where this one ends." And yet this book does touch on the subject, assertively if lightly, in its discussion of "No State shall" under the fourteenth amendment, where the author states that the Supreme Court construes the Constitution as providing a right of privacy. The author also refers us to his previous book on the Bill of Rights.

In addition, I was interested in seeing what I could learn about the liberty-empire range of perspectives concerning U.S. colonial history.

First, I have to report that the indigenous peoples do not make much of an appearance in the book, the word "indigenous" not at all. While this may accurately reflect the level of interest in indigenous peoples in the Constitution''s text and debates, it contrasts mightily with the book''s substantial focus on African-Americans, who Prof. Amar notes are mentioned in the Constitution''s text not at all.

In general, however, Prof. Amar is non-judgmental on empire. The "Territory" section of Chapter 7 on "States and Territories" notes the colonies'' "struggle to wrest the [trans-Appalachian] West from England" as part of the independence movement. With respect to the subsequent Constitution, the book notes that "the union was broke," that Federalist Paper No. 38 characterized the West as "a mine of vast wealth," and that "the first wave of income would flow from land sales."

However, Prof. Amar''s book doesn''t mention that Britain also was broke from the expenses of winning France''s withdrawal, or the role of the hated taxes in repairing that. The book''s frequent references to George Washington''s influence on the country''s direction do not include mention of his role in conquering western land for commercial sale. The book does however slightly puncture the "no taxation without representation" rationale where it says, "Not that the colonists really wanted direct representation in Parliament. A small number of Americans amid a sea of British legislators would likely be consistently outvoted."

Contrasted with the book''s adopting as a major theme the expansion of liberty accomplished through the Constitution and its amendments, the near non-treatment of empire places the book towards the right in the political spectrum in that particular regard.

While this gap regarding "empire" reflects an interest of my own, in a finite book gaps must necessarily be infinite, so I should close by saying that what is there in the book is substantial and worthwhile.
13 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report
VA Duck
5.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
Evolving Principles
Reviewed in the United States on February 23, 2013
"America''s Constitution..." is a serious, scholarly book, but so lucidly written that the lay reader will have no problem following the text or comprehending the theme. This book is a major work on the topic and so well done that 5-stars are easily earned. Other books of... See more
"America''s Constitution..." is a serious, scholarly book, but so lucidly written that the lay reader will have no problem following the text or comprehending the theme. This book is a major work on the topic and so well done that 5-stars are easily earned. Other books of similar intent, such as Professor Jack Rakove''s book Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution , may succeed in analysis, but frequently leave the lay reader with a hard slog for comprehension.

Professor Amar blends three perspectives in his look at the constitution: history, law and political science. And that three-viewed approach is what yeilds the depth of penetration that this book presents. The issue of the young nation''s "peculiar institution" (slavery) for example, is shown to be infused well beyond what the casual reader might see in reading the constitution.

By illustrating the norms and mores of the late 18th century, citing the record of the constitution and ratification papers - both Federalist and Anti-Federalist, as well as analysis of court decisions that have followed - Professor Amar makes his case with clear documentation and solid logical argument for both the good and bad; and there is no mistaking that the "good" triumphs. He tells us what we need to know about our constitution, not what its detractors or its exalters insist on. Highly recommended if a very in-depth look at the U.S. Constitution, its original meanings and historic evolution are your interest.

-----kindle edition-----

It is always disappointing in a book such as this (one that can be used for reference) that hardcopy page numbers are not provided. References from kindle to hardcopy or the reverse are difficult to impossible. Digital media or not - page numbers are still (unfortunately) the only common denominator. And, if EVER a book needed an index - this is it. Re-finding passages of interest are now left entirely to highlighting which can become overwhelming in a 655 page book - especially one with as much to say as this one, yet NO index is provided. For expediency, the publisher has eliminated the index from the e-book version - but retains the same price as the paper copy! e-Book publication quality, ★★☆☆☆ for typically rapacious Random House.
17 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report
Roanld Tenney
4.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
Insights from start to finish
Reviewed in the United States on April 9, 2012
Another great book about the constitution. This approaches the Constitution from the Preamble to the most recent amendments. This morning, (4/9/12) I finished this book. I found Akhil Amar to be a wonderful author. I would advise a reader to read the post-script... See more
Another great book about the constitution. This approaches the Constitution from the Preamble to the most recent amendments.

This morning, (4/9/12) I finished this book. I found Akhil Amar to be a wonderful author. I would advise a reader to read the post-script first, and then return to the rest of the book. I was especially impressed with the chapter on the Preamble to the Constitution. I never considered that the most (only) lyrical part of the document was so laden with meaning.

As most other books confine themselves to the founding era, the summer of 1787 or possibly the ratification process, this book continues the story to modern times. Amar insists that the Constitution does not belong to the founders, but to "We, the people". I came to the same conclusion.

I feel like I am very sensitive to the role of slavery in the founding. I have read many works on the Civil war. I have a light-hearted but ongoing debate with some friends and family members on the role of slavery in America. But Amar takes my position and amplifies it greatly. I found this insightful, but ultimately biased. It is not that I condone slavery in any way, shape or form. It is that this filter of the slavocracy seems to inform his perspective at every turn. I grant that slavery was a fundamental motivation of many of the founders. But perhaps other factors may have had relatively greater roles in the evolution of America and our Constitution and his emphasis may overlook this.

I recommend this book. I came away more informed about how we came up with the Constitution, how amendments are made and the vital role of we, the people, in maintaining this document.

rt
7 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report
Jeffrey G. Smith
5.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
Insightful read
Reviewed in the United States on May 24, 2020
I’m a lawyer and was a student of U.S. history and politics as well as the Constitution. This is a dense book even so, but well worth the read. Amar has a real grasp of our bad side at the founding and of our movement towards broader democracy over the ensuing 12... See more
I’m a lawyer and was a student of U.S. history and politics as well as the Constitution. This is a dense book even so, but well worth the read. Amar has a real grasp of our bad side at the founding and of our movement towards broader democracy over the ensuing 12 generations as well as surprising tidbits along the way. He writes clearly and accessibly for non-professionals so I recommend it to anyone seriously interested.
One person found this helpful
Helpful
Report
M. Strong
4.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
worth reading
Reviewed in the United States on October 9, 2018
Prof Amar may be in the liberal democrat end of the spectrum but he writes clearly and well on this subject. this book will hopefully prompt you to delve deeper into how our constitution came into existence, why so many people struggle to come here despite the relentless... See more
Prof Amar may be in the liberal democrat end of the spectrum but he writes clearly and well on this subject. this book will hopefully prompt you to delve deeper into how our constitution came into existence, why so many people struggle to come here despite the relentless criticism of the progressive left.
2 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report
Victor Jones
5.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
Fascinating read
Reviewed in the United States on January 11, 2017
I had read the book a few years ago, and was fascinated by the discussion. I am very interested in learning/reading about the Supreme Court and how it goes about interpreting the Constitution, so this was very good background material. In areas like law,... See more
I had read the book a few years ago, and was fascinated by the discussion. I am very interested in learning/reading about the Supreme Court and how it goes about interpreting the Constitution, so this was very good background material.

In areas like law, economics, etc., the political philosophy of the writer shapes the narrative. I am not sure of the author''s political leanings, and how much that shapes the text.

In any case, this is well worth the read. It gives a very coherent explanation for the original need for the Electoral College. There are also amusing tidbits like Wyoming (I think) being the first state to give women the right to vote; supposedly it was a way to attract them to move to this male-dominated state !
One person found this helpful
Helpful
Report
James C. Schuyler
5.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
This is a very good introduction to the complex ideas underlying this short but ...
Reviewed in the United States on August 4, 2017
This is a very good introduction to the complex ideas underlying this short but so very significant document. I''m a political junky, so for those of you are not this book may be a solution for insomnia. If you care about the country and want to understand it''s governing... See more
This is a very good introduction to the complex ideas underlying this short but so very significant document. I''m a political junky, so for those of you are not this book may be a solution for insomnia. If you care about the country and want to understand it''s governing document, then this is a great start.
2 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report

Top reviews from other countries

Arun
3.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
Excellent
Reviewed in India on March 27, 2017
Blend with political history of US, this marvelous piece of knowledge is immensely beneficial for students who are doing research on comparative constitutional law.
Blend with political history of US, this marvelous piece of knowledge is immensely beneficial for students who are doing research on comparative constitutional law.
Report
David S.
5.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
Five Stars
Reviewed in Canada on November 18, 2015
Excellent work!
Excellent work!
Report
Translate all reviews to English
山﨑 叶
5.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
New York Timesのベストセラーだけのことはありますね
Reviewed in Japan on February 19, 2014
法律の素人でもアメリカに興味ある私には最高に面白い。 著者Amar、エール大学教授のMOOC,COUSERAのConstitutional Lawを受講中ですが.楽しい講座です。 なお、余談ですがアマゾン日本でCOUSERAの日本でも人気の出そうなコースの主な推薦図書など揃えてもらえませんか? 助かります
法律の素人でもアメリカに興味ある私には最高に面白い。
著者Amar、エール大学教授のMOOC,COUSERAのConstitutional Lawを受講中ですが.楽しい講座です。
なお、余談ですがアマゾン日本でCOUSERAの日本でも人気の出そうなコースの主な推薦図書など揃えてもらえませんか?
助かります
2 people found this helpful
Report
Translate review to English
Emilio Peluso Neder Meyer
3.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
Three Stars
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on November 25, 2014
Good condition
Good condition
Report
See all reviews
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Pages with related products.

  • history of united states of america
  • legal history
  • americas best
  • constitution of the united states of america

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale

high quality America's popular Constitution: popular A Biography sale