Sunstein (jurisprudence, political science, U. of Chicago) asserts that, as it is currently interpreted, the Constitution is biased. He points to two contemporary mistakes: that Constitutional law posits the status quo as neutral and just (which, he argues, is not the case); and that the meaning of the Constitution is increasingly solely within the purview of the Supreme Court (which, he argues, is not what the founders intended.) Annotation copyright by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

One of America's preeminent constitutional scholars, Sunstein mounts a defense of the most striking characteristic of modern constitutional law: the inclination to decide one case at a time. Examining various controversies, he shows how--and why--the Court has avoided broad rulings, and in doing so has fostered public debate on difficult topics.

Publisher Description

The first English translation of Hans Kelsen's and Carl Schmitt's debate on the 'Guardian of the Constitution'.

"The book is intended to make clearer the ambiguities of "constitutional faith," i.e. wholehearted attachment to the Constitution as the center of one's (and ultimately the nation's) political life."--The introduction.

In this first systematic study of the legal problems relating to the convention clause, Russell Caplan shows that repeated constitutional crises have given rise to state drives for a national convention nearly every twenty years since the Constitution was enacted. He deftly examines the politics of constitutional brinksmanship between Congress and the states to reveal the ongoing tension between state and federal rights and constitutional tradition and reform.

Political constitutions are compromises with injustice. What makes the U.S. Constitution legitimate is Americans’ faith that the constitutional system can be made “a more perfect union.” Balkin argues that the American constitutional project is based in hope and a narrative of shared redemption, and its destiny is still over the horizon.

Extension of presidential leadership in foreign affairs to war powers has destabilized our constitutional order and deranged our foreign policy. Stephen M. Griffin shows unexpected connections between the imperial presidency and constitutional crises, and argues for accountability by restoring Congress to a meaningful role in decisions for war.

Problems of constitutional interpretation have many faces, but much of the contemporary discussion has focused on what has come to be called "originalism." The core of originalism is the belief that fidelity to the original understanding of the Constitution should constrain contemporary judges. As originalist thinking has evolved, it has become clear that there is a family of originalist theories, some emphasizing the intent of the framers, while others focus on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. This idea has enjoyed a modern resurgence, in good part in reaction to the assumption of more sweeping power by the judiciary, operating in the name of constitutional interpretation. Those arguing for a "living Constitution" that keeps up with a changing world and changing values have resisted originalism. This difference in legal philosophy and jurisprudence has, since the 1970s, spilled over into party politics and the partisan wrangling over court appointments from appellate courts to the Supreme Court. In Constitutional Originalism, Robert W. Bennett and Lawrence B. Solum elucidate the two sides of this debate and mediate between them in order to separate differences that are real from those that are only apparent. In a thorough exploration of the range of contemporary views on originalism, the authors articulate and defend sharply contrasting positions. Solum brings learning from the philosophy of language to his argument in favor of originalism, and Bennett highlights interpretational problems in the dispute-resolution context, describing instances in which a living Constitution is a more feasible and productive position. The book explores those contrasting positions, to be sure, but also uncovers important points of agreement for the interpretational enterprise. This provocative and absorbing book ends with a bibliographic essay that points to landmark works in the field and helps lay readers and students orient themselves within the literature of the debate.

In this incisive and insightful book, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano peels back the legal veneer and shows how politicians, judges, prosecutors, and bureaucrats are trampling the U.S. Constitution in the name of law and order and fighting terrorism. Napolitano reveals how they: silence the First Amendment shoot holes in the Second break some laws to enforce others entrap citizens steal private property seize evidence without warrant imprison without charge kill without cause Pundits on the right, left, and center have praised Constitutional Chaos for its penetrating examination of our rights and liberties in the post-9/11 world. "Has the war on terrorism taken away some of your rights? In a non-ideological way, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano answers that crucial question. This book will open your eyes."-Bill O'Reilly "This book is a wake-up call for all who value personal freedom and limited government."-Rush Limbaugh "In all of the American media, Judge Napolitano is the most persistent, uncompromising guardian of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. . ."-Nat Hentoff Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is Fox News Channel's senior judicial analyst, seen by millions on The Big Story with John Gibson, The O'Reilly Factor, Fox and Friends, and other shows. His articles and commentaries have been published in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Newark Star Ledger, and other national publications.