Book Review "America's Constitution: A Biography" by Akhil Amar

[ltorlo64]

I recently read “America’s Constitution: A Biography” by Akhil Reed Amar. Dr. Amar is a professor of law and political science at Yale University. It was a very good book written from a different perspective than other books I have read on the Constitution. This book followed the Constitution from its birth as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation, to its current amended form.

The thing I liked best about this book was it looked at the Constitution as a whole. In doing this Dr. Amar not only wrote and explained the amendments to the Constitution, but he also explained why the people who proposed the amendments thought they would be a good idea. He included in his explanation political realities that were present at the time and how these realities affected the political thought behind the movement to amend the Constitution.

The only thing I wish he would have covered more was the Founders reasoning in how Senators were elected. He points out that for while the Founders were very concerned with a democratic form of government, they were also concerned with preventing the excesses and inefficiencies that democracy could cause, which is why we actually became a representative republic. What he did not explain was why the Founders found it necessary to have one legislative house elected by the people and the other elected by the elected state representatives. I would have really liked to get his take on what that was necessary.

Even without that explanation I learned a lot about the Constitution, the process used to create, why it was considered necessary, and, most importantly, what the people were really voting on when they ratified the Constitution. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

[FunkyPertwee]

It's been my belief that the senate was originally elected by the states and not the public because the federal government was only intended to govern the states, not the private individuals living within those states.

[5.56NATO]

"Amar is the author of numerous publications and books, most recently America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By. The Supreme Court has cited his work in over twenty cases, including the landmark 1998 decision in Clinton v. City of New York, which ruled the presidential line-item veto unconstitutional.[1] In their book For the People: What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights, Amar and Alan Hirsch introduce a variation on the four boxes of liberty theme often quoted by conservatives opposed to gun control. Discussing the American Constitution, they assert that the ideal of citizenship generates four "boxes" of rights. The first three are the ballot box, jury box and cartridge box. To these, with some reservations, they add the lunch box: the idea of a social safety net that supports basic physical and educational needs.[6][7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Amar


Well..... now we know how he feels about the 2nd amendment.

[ltorlo64]

Well..... now we know how he feels about the 2nd amendment.

Actually you need to read the book to find out that he does support the Second Amendment as it was written but points out that the fundamental understanding of the Second Amendment changed after the Confederacy attacked the US.

He has a second book that I will read soon that deals specifically with the Amendments. I will let you know what that has to say about the Second when I read it.

[ltorlo64]

I was thinking a little more about what he wrote about the Second Amendment in this book and I think it is closer to what most of us believe than you might think. He wrote that those gun-rights activists that think the Second Amendment was written to protect hunting arms are wrong. The Second actually allows for controlling hunting arms. On the other hand the gun-control activists that think the Second Amendment allows for regulating all arms are also wrong. Those arms that are used by the military are prohibited from being regulated. And the prerequisite to owning arms is not belonging to a militia but so citizens can join a militia if necessary. He also states that those gun-control activists who argue that the National Guard takes the place of the militia do so out of ignorance. The strength of militias are that they are not controlled by the federal, or in some cases even the state, government but by local bodies of citizens. The National Guard is under control of the state and can be called up be under federal control at a moments notice. This was seen by the Founders as dangerous to freedom and liberty.

[dfariswheel]

The original intent was that the House would be elected by and directly represent the People.
The Senate would be elected by the State legislatures and would represent the interests of the States to the Federal government.

The idea that the 2nd Amendment was NOT intended to protect the Right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms is an idea that appeared NO WHERE until the mid-1960's.
Before that it was universally understood to protect the citizens individual Right.
It was only with the Progressive Left university legal professors in the 60's that the idea became that it was a collective right of the government to arm a militia.