What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Read the Constitution - and Why
An insightful, urgent, and perennially relevant handbook that lays out in common sense language how the United States Constitution works, and how its protections are eroding before our eyes—essential reading for anyone who wants to understand and parse the constantly breaking news about the backbone of American government.
The Constitution is the most significant document in America. But do you fully understand what this valuable document means to you? In How to Read the Constitution and Why, legal expert and educator Kimberly Wehle spells out in clear, simple, and common sense terms what is in the Constitution, and most importantly, what it means. In compelling terms, she describes how the Constitution’s protections are eroding—not only in express terms but by virtue of the many legal and social norms that no longer shore up its legitimacy—and why every American needs to heed to this “red flag” moment in our democracy.
This invaluable—and timely—resource covers nearly every significant aspect of the Constitution, from the powers of the President and how the three branches of government are designed to hold each other accountable, to what it means to have individual rights—including free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to an abortion. Finally, the book explains why it has never been more important than now for all Americans to know how our Constitution works—and why, if we don’t step in to protect it now, we could lose its protections forever.
How to Read the Constitution and Why is essential reading for anyone who cares about maintaining an accountable government and the individual freedoms that the Constitution enshrines for everyone in America—regardless of political party.
The Constitution is the most significant document in America. But do you fully understand what this valuable document means to you? In How to Read the Constitution and Why, legal expert and educator Kimberly Wehle spells out in clear, simple, and common sense terms what is in the Constitution, and most importantly, what it means. In compelling terms, she describes how the Constitution’s protections are eroding—not only in express terms but by virtue of the many legal and social norms that no longer shore up its legitimacy—and why every American needs to heed to this “red flag” moment in our democracy.
This invaluable—and timely—resource covers nearly every significant aspect of the Constitution, from the powers of the President and how the three branches of government are designed to hold each other accountable, to what it means to have individual rights—including free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to an abortion. Finally, the book explains why it has never been more important than now for all Americans to know how our Constitution works—and why, if we don’t step in to protect it now, we could lose its protections forever.
How to Read the Constitution and Why is essential reading for anyone who cares about maintaining an accountable government and the individual freedoms that the Constitution enshrines for everyone in America—regardless of political party.
334 pages, Hardcover
Published June 25, 2019
745 people are currently reading
2058 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 132 reviews
July 9, 2019
I think Wehle must use this book for her classes. Wehle goes through the Constitution explaining the meaning or at least what the Supreme Court has ruled. The author also covers laws, etc., that are based on common values, morals and so forth.
The book is well written and easy to understand. The author covers items from Washington to Trump. She also reveals how dictators take over when the voters and legislators fail to act. This is a good review and provides some insight on how to understand what the Constitution does and does not say.
I read this as an e-book downloaded from Amazon to my Kindle app for my iPad. The book is 353 pages and was published on June 25, 2019.
The book is well written and easy to understand. The author covers items from Washington to Trump. She also reveals how dictators take over when the voters and legislators fail to act. This is a good review and provides some insight on how to understand what the Constitution does and does not say.
I read this as an e-book downloaded from Amazon to my Kindle app for my iPad. The book is 353 pages and was published on June 25, 2019.
October 13, 2019
As a retired lawyer I am clearly not the targeted audience for this book and reviewing it will, therefore, be a bit more difficult. To appreciate the value of this book will require being able to see its merits from the perspective of a layperson and that isn't me. As a lawyer I am occasionally asked my opinion on a variety of legal issues besides being asked for free legal advice on any sort of legal problem even though my career was exclusively criminal law. In these discussions matters of constitutional significance sometimes arise and it is on these occasions that the ignorance of basic governmental mechanics and constitutional understanding becomes woefully apparent. It is also apparent that this ignorance is more common the younger a person is. I recall studying civics as early as the fourth grade and it was a regular course of study in many of my subsequent years of study until graduation from high school. In fact, it was a requirement in my state that a high school senior needed to pass a state mandated constitution test in order to graduate. I doubt such a requirement exists anymore as our young people seem to know very little about how their government functions. After reading this book I believe the author and I have had similar experiences with discussing the constitution with laymen but she has decided to do something about it and the result is this book.
As I have stated I am not a layman so I did not find this book particularly informative. The reason I decided to pick it up and read it was to learn what the author had to say and how she went about presenting it. At 264 pages of text on a subject whose complexity is enormous I was, to say the least, skeptical of it having much value. That, however, is the conclusion of the non-layman and not important. Will a layman get anything out of this book? Answer, yes I think they will. First, if I have any serious criticism it is with the 27 page Introduction which will put most people to sleep including me. After the unnecessarily long Introduction the meat of the author's effort begins.
The author has divided her constitutional analysis into three parts, governmental structure, constitutional rights, and why should we care. The first part is a fairly basic discussion of the structure of government and might seem rather insulting in its simplicity. Having encountered people that do not know the three branches of government I am readily able to forgive the author for not assuming a common level of knowledge that may not exist anymore. It's always good to start any project with a solid foundation and this was probably a wise choice for this book. It is in the second part that the discussion starts to get more serious and more interesting. Part of the appeal of this book will be found in the author's inspiration which has come from current events. She freely uses issues raised by the Trump administrations conflicts with the law, the courts, the constitution and history to illustrate how the constitution works and how the government it creates is supposed to function. In this part of the discussion the author highlights the current administration's missteps and ignorance of constitutional fundamentals. It is this second part of the book that is the heart of author's goal. The last part is the author's opportunity to make her argument in favor of preserving this constitution, our history, and our traditions and I found absolutely nothing here that I could not wholeheartedly agree with.
Finally, there is one small, very small, and amusing technique that the author employs in the writing of this book that the reader will certainly notice. I will assume the author is a dedicated feminist because wherever the opportunity required the use of pronoun she always uses a feminine pronoun. When referring to a president or a member of Congress or a business person or any other person the author always refers to them as "she" or "her". But, hey, it's her book and this brought a smile to the face of this old man. This is a worthwhile read and a good primer for any layperson that wants to begin a study of a very serious subject that is essential for all of our citizens to understand more completely.
As I have stated I am not a layman so I did not find this book particularly informative. The reason I decided to pick it up and read it was to learn what the author had to say and how she went about presenting it. At 264 pages of text on a subject whose complexity is enormous I was, to say the least, skeptical of it having much value. That, however, is the conclusion of the non-layman and not important. Will a layman get anything out of this book? Answer, yes I think they will. First, if I have any serious criticism it is with the 27 page Introduction which will put most people to sleep including me. After the unnecessarily long Introduction the meat of the author's effort begins.
The author has divided her constitutional analysis into three parts, governmental structure, constitutional rights, and why should we care. The first part is a fairly basic discussion of the structure of government and might seem rather insulting in its simplicity. Having encountered people that do not know the three branches of government I am readily able to forgive the author for not assuming a common level of knowledge that may not exist anymore. It's always good to start any project with a solid foundation and this was probably a wise choice for this book. It is in the second part that the discussion starts to get more serious and more interesting. Part of the appeal of this book will be found in the author's inspiration which has come from current events. She freely uses issues raised by the Trump administrations conflicts with the law, the courts, the constitution and history to illustrate how the constitution works and how the government it creates is supposed to function. In this part of the discussion the author highlights the current administration's missteps and ignorance of constitutional fundamentals. It is this second part of the book that is the heart of author's goal. The last part is the author's opportunity to make her argument in favor of preserving this constitution, our history, and our traditions and I found absolutely nothing here that I could not wholeheartedly agree with.
Finally, there is one small, very small, and amusing technique that the author employs in the writing of this book that the reader will certainly notice. I will assume the author is a dedicated feminist because wherever the opportunity required the use of pronoun she always uses a feminine pronoun. When referring to a president or a member of Congress or a business person or any other person the author always refers to them as "she" or "her". But, hey, it's her book and this brought a smile to the face of this old man. This is a worthwhile read and a good primer for any layperson that wants to begin a study of a very serious subject that is essential for all of our citizens to understand more completely.
July 11, 2019
A 2017 poll from the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center essentially found that many (or most) Americans know next to nothing about the US Constitution. Two shocking examples should suffice to get the point across:
1. 37 percent of those surveyed could not name ANY rights protected under the First Amendment.
2. Only 26 percent of those surveyed could name all three branches of government, while 33 percent could not name a single branch!!
It is against this backdrop of utter ignorance that How to Read the Constitution And Why by Kim Wehle is so important. Wehle, a law professor and constitutional scholar, seeks to remedy a deep irony in American politics: that the Constitution is useless if not enforced, but that it can’t be enforced if the people it grants power to (“We the People”) do not know anything about what it says.
We can’t hold our elected representatives accountable to a document we don’t understand, and if it gets violated, or ultimately replaced, we really have no one to blame but ourselves for tolerating the transgressions. Democracy simply can’t work if it remains the case that 33 percent of the voting population can’t name a branch of government.
The first step to repairing democracy, then, is probably educational, and, of course, it is the responsibility of every citizen to understand, at a minimum, the basic contents of their country’s founding document. Of course, that requires that one actually reads the Constitution itself, and you should, because it’s only only 7,591 words including the 27 amendments (that’s only about 16 pages, so there’s really no excuse). But to truly understand constitutional issues requires something more than a quick reading of the text.
Why? Because again, the document is only about 16 pages long, written 230 years ago, when the US population was 3.9 million (versus 327 million today), in an agrarian economy without advanced technology and 100 years before the discovery of the germ theory of disease. That is to say, things were very different back then, and on top of that, the text is loaded with ambiguous language and missing details. To really understand constitutional issues requires both a familiarity with the Constitution and with the history of important Supreme Court decisions, general US history, and the underlying political political philosophy and legal theory.
But that is probably a tall order for most, which is why How to Read the Constitution and Why provides an ideal shortcut to constitutional fluency without needing to become a legal scholar, historian, or political philosopher.
The organization of the book is easy to follow: the first section covers the structure of government, including the concepts of the separation of powers and checks and balances and the functions of all three branches of government (which will apparently come as news to 33 percent of the country). The second section covers individual rights protected under the constitutional Amendments, and the third section covers elections, the legislative process, and why we should care if the Constitution gets violated and democracy suffers.
Wehle covers the constitutional text, the relevant Supreme Court cases, and the underlying philosophical and legal complexities in an objective and informative manner. The book also includes the full text of the Constitution itself, so as a stand-alone guide, this book is perfect both for those who can’t name a single branch of government as well as for those wanting to dive deeper into the complexities of the law.
Two important themes found throughout the book are worth repeating: 1) any constitutional violations set precedent for future violations, and 2) the “strict reading” of the Constitution is a myth.
First, regarding violations, people tend to be quite short-sighted. You may not mind if the leader you like violates the Constitution according to politics you agree with, but the problem is, once power is granted, it's hard to put back in the bag. So the next time a leader comes to power that you don’t like, he or she will use the established mechanisms to implement policies that run counter to your beliefs. This spells disaster in the long run for everyone.
Protecting the Constitution is therefore not exclusive to one political party or ideology, and should be a concern of everyone. And while it is often not immediately clear if a particular action or piece of legislation in fact violates the Constitution, certain principles should be perpetually upheld. Remember that the Constitution was created in opposition to the monarchical rule of King George III, so any increase in the power of the president, especially in the creation of new laws, should draw an immediate red flag.
Second, to show how the strict reading of the Constitution is a myth, let’s take the non-controversial example of the Second Amendment, which reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
One thing we can say is that no one really knows what the fuck this means. This is the entirety of the Second Amendment, with no further elaboration in the Constitution as to the precise meaning of the term “arms” or with any further elaboration on intent, justification, or limitation.
There are consequently at least two primary interpretations to this amendment:
1. That there are two rights being granted, 1) the right for states to form a well regulated Militia, and 2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In other words, the right to keep and bear arms is not out of necessity connected to the establishment of a Militia.
2. That the right being granted is the right to form a Militia, and that the right to keep and bear arms applies only within the context of the Militia. (The Second Amendment, if written like the First Amendment, could have just stated that Congress shall pass no laws infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, without mentioning the Militia, if that was the true intention.)
Nonetheless, judges must choose one of these competing interpretations, but either way, it’s an interpretation that is most certainly not spelled out in the Constitution. Further, a true “originalist” interpretation of the term “arms” would not include any firearm that was not in existence on or before 1787 (basically anything other than muskets).
And so every judge must select a general interpretation including decisions on the precise meanings of terms and phrases, and therefore the distinction between “originalist” and “activist” judges is largely a false dichotomy. More important is having a clear rationale for a ruling than to pretend to know the original intentions of the framers, especially when some of the intentions are worth overturning (the condoning of slavery, as one example).
This is all to say that constitutional law is complicated, a balancing act between original intentions and modifications to reflect new realities, but it doesn’t help to hide behind an originalist position that is usually just justification to pursue a conservative ideology without having to spell out the rationale.
----
If you take away anything from the book, as Wehle stated, it should be that the Constitution is worthless if not enforced. And it’s certainly worth enforcing, because if it’s replaced, we can all be reasonably sure that it will be replaced with something far inferior.
1. 37 percent of those surveyed could not name ANY rights protected under the First Amendment.
2. Only 26 percent of those surveyed could name all three branches of government, while 33 percent could not name a single branch!!
It is against this backdrop of utter ignorance that How to Read the Constitution And Why by Kim Wehle is so important. Wehle, a law professor and constitutional scholar, seeks to remedy a deep irony in American politics: that the Constitution is useless if not enforced, but that it can’t be enforced if the people it grants power to (“We the People”) do not know anything about what it says.
We can’t hold our elected representatives accountable to a document we don’t understand, and if it gets violated, or ultimately replaced, we really have no one to blame but ourselves for tolerating the transgressions. Democracy simply can’t work if it remains the case that 33 percent of the voting population can’t name a branch of government.
The first step to repairing democracy, then, is probably educational, and, of course, it is the responsibility of every citizen to understand, at a minimum, the basic contents of their country’s founding document. Of course, that requires that one actually reads the Constitution itself, and you should, because it’s only only 7,591 words including the 27 amendments (that’s only about 16 pages, so there’s really no excuse). But to truly understand constitutional issues requires something more than a quick reading of the text.
Why? Because again, the document is only about 16 pages long, written 230 years ago, when the US population was 3.9 million (versus 327 million today), in an agrarian economy without advanced technology and 100 years before the discovery of the germ theory of disease. That is to say, things were very different back then, and on top of that, the text is loaded with ambiguous language and missing details. To really understand constitutional issues requires both a familiarity with the Constitution and with the history of important Supreme Court decisions, general US history, and the underlying political political philosophy and legal theory.
But that is probably a tall order for most, which is why How to Read the Constitution and Why provides an ideal shortcut to constitutional fluency without needing to become a legal scholar, historian, or political philosopher.
The organization of the book is easy to follow: the first section covers the structure of government, including the concepts of the separation of powers and checks and balances and the functions of all three branches of government (which will apparently come as news to 33 percent of the country). The second section covers individual rights protected under the constitutional Amendments, and the third section covers elections, the legislative process, and why we should care if the Constitution gets violated and democracy suffers.
Wehle covers the constitutional text, the relevant Supreme Court cases, and the underlying philosophical and legal complexities in an objective and informative manner. The book also includes the full text of the Constitution itself, so as a stand-alone guide, this book is perfect both for those who can’t name a single branch of government as well as for those wanting to dive deeper into the complexities of the law.
Two important themes found throughout the book are worth repeating: 1) any constitutional violations set precedent for future violations, and 2) the “strict reading” of the Constitution is a myth.
First, regarding violations, people tend to be quite short-sighted. You may not mind if the leader you like violates the Constitution according to politics you agree with, but the problem is, once power is granted, it's hard to put back in the bag. So the next time a leader comes to power that you don’t like, he or she will use the established mechanisms to implement policies that run counter to your beliefs. This spells disaster in the long run for everyone.
Protecting the Constitution is therefore not exclusive to one political party or ideology, and should be a concern of everyone. And while it is often not immediately clear if a particular action or piece of legislation in fact violates the Constitution, certain principles should be perpetually upheld. Remember that the Constitution was created in opposition to the monarchical rule of King George III, so any increase in the power of the president, especially in the creation of new laws, should draw an immediate red flag.
Second, to show how the strict reading of the Constitution is a myth, let’s take the non-controversial example of the Second Amendment, which reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
One thing we can say is that no one really knows what the fuck this means. This is the entirety of the Second Amendment, with no further elaboration in the Constitution as to the precise meaning of the term “arms” or with any further elaboration on intent, justification, or limitation.
There are consequently at least two primary interpretations to this amendment:
1. That there are two rights being granted, 1) the right for states to form a well regulated Militia, and 2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In other words, the right to keep and bear arms is not out of necessity connected to the establishment of a Militia.
2. That the right being granted is the right to form a Militia, and that the right to keep and bear arms applies only within the context of the Militia. (The Second Amendment, if written like the First Amendment, could have just stated that Congress shall pass no laws infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, without mentioning the Militia, if that was the true intention.)
Nonetheless, judges must choose one of these competing interpretations, but either way, it’s an interpretation that is most certainly not spelled out in the Constitution. Further, a true “originalist” interpretation of the term “arms” would not include any firearm that was not in existence on or before 1787 (basically anything other than muskets).
And so every judge must select a general interpretation including decisions on the precise meanings of terms and phrases, and therefore the distinction between “originalist” and “activist” judges is largely a false dichotomy. More important is having a clear rationale for a ruling than to pretend to know the original intentions of the framers, especially when some of the intentions are worth overturning (the condoning of slavery, as one example).
This is all to say that constitutional law is complicated, a balancing act between original intentions and modifications to reflect new realities, but it doesn’t help to hide behind an originalist position that is usually just justification to pursue a conservative ideology without having to spell out the rationale.
----
If you take away anything from the book, as Wehle stated, it should be that the Constitution is worthless if not enforced. And it’s certainly worth enforcing, because if it’s replaced, we can all be reasonably sure that it will be replaced with something far inferior.
November 27, 2020
I wanted to learn more about the constitution, this being an election year, from a non-partisan source. In particular I wanted to be more informed about the concept of “originalism” and “federalism”, terms thrown about by pundits like poisoned darts. This book met my need, written in layperson terms yet not so dumbed down as to be irrelevant to a reasonably well-read adult in America. This author writes well (undergrad from Cornell in English) and is highly credentialed and experienced. Her political orientation seems balanced (ranging from having supported Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation to a commentator on CNN). It was informative, as I had hoped and delivered just what I sought.
A main theme is that the concise document we know as the constitution, while one of the greatest ever for balancing the need for government and desire for personal liberty, is nonetheless (1) singularly flawed on human rights, especially non-whites and women; (2) out of date to address the needs of a changed and rapidly changing America; and (3) too weak and general on its own to accomplish its objectives. The last point was noted immediately, and the 10 bill of rights quickly appended (thankfully). I can agree this “law of the land” is one of the greatest compacts for a democratic style of government dreamed of by the Greeks and Romans, yet is a malleable instrument that can, and may, still fail. I hope it isn’t so for a very long time.
The other major theme is that there is no such thing as “pure” constitutionalists, the words always need interpretation. Arguing with strict constitutionalists is for me similar to those claiming to be “literal” adherents to the bible. I won’t go into that any deeper, other than to say I find it tiresome and idolatrous to take this path: What matters is language (there is not perfect translation, hence no true universal understanding of meaning), context, and the background/assumptions unwittingly built in by the authors. The fact that women couldn’t participate in elections until 1920 (a mere 150 years later) should be enough to prove the imperfection and inadequacy of the original document and the powers it invokes.
The final major theme is that the constitution alone is inadequate to provide the particular type of democratic government most Americans cherish. Though our best weapon against, and a powerful bulwark against, it cannot enforce itself and if the electorate and their choices choose to subvert, there is nothing that the words alone can do (so obvious yet we take for granted). Because enforcement requires interpretation by judges and juries, and the will of the people gets diluted through the political process of appointment and power.
Speaking of power, their separation and balancing was a major theme from our framers. They did not want rule by another monarch/dictator, and thus the famous checks and balances. This has gotten out of whack, however, such as under FDR when the number of federal agencies proliferated, thus accruing greater power to the executive. As troublesome as Trump’s flouting of power, he did not, e.g., dismantle the HHS and FDA to get unsafe drugs to the market (fast tracking a vaccine in the current pandemic, e.g.). But he had every right as this governmental agency reports to the president, as does an astonishing number of other critical governmental functions. A more competent, and malign, character in the White House could do great harm. It is not farfetched, this time of great polarization, that another more competent extremist could be elected. We rely on the SCOTUS to do its job here. Something I didn’t appreciate was the fact that the POTUS can make laws (not only congress can legislate) so long as they can withstand constitutional challenge. I think of regulations by FDA of drug manufacturing, which carry the force of law.
The constitution is not set in stone, it always requires interpretation. Wehle gives the example of when Richard Nixon impounded money appropriated by congress, thereby an abdication of his obligation to execute the laws faithfully (p.63). Under the four theories of interpretation by the SCOTUS, whether an action like this is unconstitutional is very much a matter of deep philosophical interpretation. Our most learned minds won’t agree. The constitution is not a holy scripture.
It’s easy to get sucked into the incremental reasoning behind how today’s laws came to be, and very legalistic, arcane and dry. This author does a nice job walking us through the actual verbiage of the constitution with word clouds that ask the right questions about meaning.
Pundits on the right decry “liberal” judges and imply that their opponents are opposed to the constitution. They are having their day in court, now that the SCOTUS is becoming more conservative. A good example is the 1965 legislation that disrupted state efforts to discourage or prevent people from voting. One part of the Voting Rights statute required government approval before changing state and local laws, based on an algorithm (i.e. a “test” for racist or prejudicial history). In 2013 this law was rescinded, so state legislatures now have the power back to limit voting (fewer polling places, rules on voting that disenfranchise targeted groups). This is the voter suppression that we are hearing so much about in this 2020 election. It shows how the interpretation of the constitution, and the makeup of the SCOTUS, are vital to actual practice and privilege in our daily lives. A weaker role of federal government will mean more power to the states, even when those practices are within the boundaries of constitutionality but morally bankrupt. This will lead to conflict, especially when the states and local governments fail to meet up with their needs and expectations. Those depending on the protection of the federal government from state laws will lose. The fact that our current president selected three young conservatives to the SCOTUS, though losing the popular vote on election in 2016, shows how the mismatch of the court with the will of the people will inevitably lead to downstream issues.
Wehle his also pessimistic that our constitution can prevent the issues arise from start polarization (she quotes from another book I read recently, How Democracies Die). The fact that federal judges are appointed by a very unpopular president, and supported by a uniquely acquiescing senate, has led us to a situation where when one party exercise raw power, there is payback when the roles are reversed. As such, the POTUS and the SCOTUS are less independent, and the tendency is for more power to accrue to the executive branch. She makes the point that once a power is weaponized, it is hard to stops its use (Pandoras box) – since the democrats changed the senate rule for cloture to ease approval of federal judges under Obama, then paid the price when they lost the majority in 2014. One can argue that this cost them the SCOTUS majority (Garland never had his day, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and now Barrett). The point is when the balance of powers gets off, the will of the majority can even be thwarted.
Finally, I was surprised to learn that the constitution allows for itself to be re-written if 3/4 of the state legislatures agree to a new constitutional convention. This is almost hard to believe, and worrisome to me. There are elected officials in favor of this, who think the constitution and amendments need a major overhaul (this is what happened in 1787). While unlikely, this is possible if the populace and their elected officials should agree that our government is sufficiently flawed in serving its people. Of course, these advocates would compete for very different views of America, so this is likely the poison pill that would prevent any such convention.
I’ve rambled on here, for my own purposes, really, and don’t expect any casual reader to ever find themselves reading this. But it is a good book, I recommend it.
A main theme is that the concise document we know as the constitution, while one of the greatest ever for balancing the need for government and desire for personal liberty, is nonetheless (1) singularly flawed on human rights, especially non-whites and women; (2) out of date to address the needs of a changed and rapidly changing America; and (3) too weak and general on its own to accomplish its objectives. The last point was noted immediately, and the 10 bill of rights quickly appended (thankfully). I can agree this “law of the land” is one of the greatest compacts for a democratic style of government dreamed of by the Greeks and Romans, yet is a malleable instrument that can, and may, still fail. I hope it isn’t so for a very long time.
The other major theme is that there is no such thing as “pure” constitutionalists, the words always need interpretation. Arguing with strict constitutionalists is for me similar to those claiming to be “literal” adherents to the bible. I won’t go into that any deeper, other than to say I find it tiresome and idolatrous to take this path: What matters is language (there is not perfect translation, hence no true universal understanding of meaning), context, and the background/assumptions unwittingly built in by the authors. The fact that women couldn’t participate in elections until 1920 (a mere 150 years later) should be enough to prove the imperfection and inadequacy of the original document and the powers it invokes.
The final major theme is that the constitution alone is inadequate to provide the particular type of democratic government most Americans cherish. Though our best weapon against, and a powerful bulwark against, it cannot enforce itself and if the electorate and their choices choose to subvert, there is nothing that the words alone can do (so obvious yet we take for granted). Because enforcement requires interpretation by judges and juries, and the will of the people gets diluted through the political process of appointment and power.
Speaking of power, their separation and balancing was a major theme from our framers. They did not want rule by another monarch/dictator, and thus the famous checks and balances. This has gotten out of whack, however, such as under FDR when the number of federal agencies proliferated, thus accruing greater power to the executive. As troublesome as Trump’s flouting of power, he did not, e.g., dismantle the HHS and FDA to get unsafe drugs to the market (fast tracking a vaccine in the current pandemic, e.g.). But he had every right as this governmental agency reports to the president, as does an astonishing number of other critical governmental functions. A more competent, and malign, character in the White House could do great harm. It is not farfetched, this time of great polarization, that another more competent extremist could be elected. We rely on the SCOTUS to do its job here. Something I didn’t appreciate was the fact that the POTUS can make laws (not only congress can legislate) so long as they can withstand constitutional challenge. I think of regulations by FDA of drug manufacturing, which carry the force of law.
The constitution is not set in stone, it always requires interpretation. Wehle gives the example of when Richard Nixon impounded money appropriated by congress, thereby an abdication of his obligation to execute the laws faithfully (p.63). Under the four theories of interpretation by the SCOTUS, whether an action like this is unconstitutional is very much a matter of deep philosophical interpretation. Our most learned minds won’t agree. The constitution is not a holy scripture.
It’s easy to get sucked into the incremental reasoning behind how today’s laws came to be, and very legalistic, arcane and dry. This author does a nice job walking us through the actual verbiage of the constitution with word clouds that ask the right questions about meaning.
Pundits on the right decry “liberal” judges and imply that their opponents are opposed to the constitution. They are having their day in court, now that the SCOTUS is becoming more conservative. A good example is the 1965 legislation that disrupted state efforts to discourage or prevent people from voting. One part of the Voting Rights statute required government approval before changing state and local laws, based on an algorithm (i.e. a “test” for racist or prejudicial history). In 2013 this law was rescinded, so state legislatures now have the power back to limit voting (fewer polling places, rules on voting that disenfranchise targeted groups). This is the voter suppression that we are hearing so much about in this 2020 election. It shows how the interpretation of the constitution, and the makeup of the SCOTUS, are vital to actual practice and privilege in our daily lives. A weaker role of federal government will mean more power to the states, even when those practices are within the boundaries of constitutionality but morally bankrupt. This will lead to conflict, especially when the states and local governments fail to meet up with their needs and expectations. Those depending on the protection of the federal government from state laws will lose. The fact that our current president selected three young conservatives to the SCOTUS, though losing the popular vote on election in 2016, shows how the mismatch of the court with the will of the people will inevitably lead to downstream issues.
Wehle his also pessimistic that our constitution can prevent the issues arise from start polarization (she quotes from another book I read recently, How Democracies Die). The fact that federal judges are appointed by a very unpopular president, and supported by a uniquely acquiescing senate, has led us to a situation where when one party exercise raw power, there is payback when the roles are reversed. As such, the POTUS and the SCOTUS are less independent, and the tendency is for more power to accrue to the executive branch. She makes the point that once a power is weaponized, it is hard to stops its use (Pandoras box) – since the democrats changed the senate rule for cloture to ease approval of federal judges under Obama, then paid the price when they lost the majority in 2014. One can argue that this cost them the SCOTUS majority (Garland never had his day, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and now Barrett). The point is when the balance of powers gets off, the will of the majority can even be thwarted.
Finally, I was surprised to learn that the constitution allows for itself to be re-written if 3/4 of the state legislatures agree to a new constitutional convention. This is almost hard to believe, and worrisome to me. There are elected officials in favor of this, who think the constitution and amendments need a major overhaul (this is what happened in 1787). While unlikely, this is possible if the populace and their elected officials should agree that our government is sufficiently flawed in serving its people. Of course, these advocates would compete for very different views of America, so this is likely the poison pill that would prevent any such convention.
I’ve rambled on here, for my own purposes, really, and don’t expect any casual reader to ever find themselves reading this. But it is a good book, I recommend it.
March 7, 2024
The author was a law professor. Enjoyed her insights
& examples. She highlighted important aspects of the
US Constitution. 4 stars.
She discussed federal balance of power in legislative,
executive, and judicial branches and how they keep
each other in check. She noted Congress makes law,
as does the President via Executive Orders (EOs).
Federal judges may review EOs & accept or inval-
idate them. Federal courts including the Supreme
Court (SC) tend to make decisions based on case
law IE when another court set a precedent. Or the
SC may create a precedent. So much for the SC
claim they never legislate! Their decisions directly
impact how laws are carried out. Federal agencies
like FTC, FCC, also make regulations/ laws.
Executive Orders begin with the President, and must
be approved by the (federal) Office of Mgt & Budget
and the US Attorney General. The author explained
the Emancipation Proclaimation (EP) became law by
President Lincoln's Executive Order. Unfortunatly
the EP was mostly ignored by Southern states after
Lincoln's assassination.
The author offered several myths RE the 2nd amend-
ment and gun ownership in the US. She noted some
of the wording in the Consitution was vague possibly
by design IE cruel and unusual punishment. She added
that there are protections for citizens & undocumented
immigrants via equal protection under the law, due
process, habeas corpus, & other means.
The author explained legal concepts w/o insulting the
intelligence of her readers. I would need to re-read this
to ensure I missed none of the points she made. A
fascinating read for policy wonks or curious readers.
& examples. She highlighted important aspects of the
US Constitution. 4 stars.
She discussed federal balance of power in legislative,
executive, and judicial branches and how they keep
each other in check. She noted Congress makes law,
as does the President via Executive Orders (EOs).
Federal judges may review EOs & accept or inval-
idate them. Federal courts including the Supreme
Court (SC) tend to make decisions based on case
law IE when another court set a precedent. Or the
SC may create a precedent. So much for the SC
claim they never legislate! Their decisions directly
impact how laws are carried out. Federal agencies
like FTC, FCC, also make regulations/ laws.
Executive Orders begin with the President, and must
be approved by the (federal) Office of Mgt & Budget
and the US Attorney General. The author explained
the Emancipation Proclaimation (EP) became law by
President Lincoln's Executive Order. Unfortunatly
the EP was mostly ignored by Southern states after
Lincoln's assassination.
The author offered several myths RE the 2nd amend-
ment and gun ownership in the US. She noted some
of the wording in the Consitution was vague possibly
by design IE cruel and unusual punishment. She added
that there are protections for citizens & undocumented
immigrants via equal protection under the law, due
process, habeas corpus, & other means.
The author explained legal concepts w/o insulting the
intelligence of her readers. I would need to re-read this
to ensure I missed none of the points she made. A
fascinating read for policy wonks or curious readers.
February 13, 2020
If there's one book I would hope to convince others to read this year, this is it. And regardless of political affiliation, I think it's more important now than ever before. According to Wehle, "It is no exaggeration to say that in the 21st Century, the structure of the Constitution is being tested like never before." While some would find it easy to point their finger at Trump, that's too easy. Wehle's reasons include defects in how Congress operates, the flood of money in politics, the way the election process functions, and the creeping influence of technology and Big Data. "But mostly the Constitution structure is being tested by the absence of accountability."
Wehle argues that The Constitution is in danger of becoming like an anti-jaywalking law. No one understands it, so the consequences for breaking it are minimized. But "The Constitution only works insofar as we use it." And to use it, we have to understand it.
I believe The Constitution is what unites us as Americans. It's not our culture (New England is as different from SoCal as Alabama is from Oregon). Certain aspect of our history unites us (World War II), but others do not (Hawaii's history is very different from the pioneers of the West and the "War of Northern Aggression"). But whether we realize it or not, our constitution is the rulebook by which American lives are governed. I took a class on understanding The Constitution in college and since, I've tried to see national current events through that lens whenever possible.
Here are just a few of the insights I gleaned from this book:
>>Taking a Knee and the First Amendment
"Forcing someone to make a pledge is forcing someone to affirm a certain belief. which comes precarious close to mandating thoughts." The First Amendment doesn't just protect free speech. It protects our individual freedom of thought. For that reason, the First Amendment is possibly the most important provision of the Constitution.
>>Guns and the Second Amendment
The Framers could have duplicated the clear wording of First Amendment and written, "Congress shall make no laws abridging gun ownership." But they didn't do that. Instead, they provided for the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" allowing that that right "shall not be infringed."
It's also important to note that the Framers took the opportunity to distinguish a "freedom" as mentioned in the First Amendment from a "right" as mentioned in the Second. A "freedom" connotes an unwritten natural law. A right is something man-made.
Ultimately, the Second Amendment debate comes down to commas. And they're important. Here's how it's written: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Argument 1: There is a right to bear arms, and also a right for states to raise militias. These are two separate things. This means even without militias, individuals can bear arms.
Argument 2: This is only about militias. Because the Federal Government was not the powerhouse it is today, and because militias were crucial at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, what the Founders intended is still debated.
>>Pleading the Fifth
The Fifth Amendment protects people from being unfairly bullied by the government through the criminal justice system. But this only kicks in if you actually do have stuff to hide. So pleading the fifth means there definitely is something you don't want to reveal. When someone pleads the 5th, the issue is brought before the judge. This person then has to show their cards privately to the judge. If the judge decides there's a fair reason to keep information hidden (protecting the innocent, or national security), the Fifth is sustained. If this person is fibbing, the judge won't let them plead the 5th.
>>The Eighth: Cruel and Unusual Punishment
When the debate over waterboarding became news during the W. administration, the torture memos from the DOJ stated that "Nothing is torture if it doesn't produce near organ failure." Yikes. Under that rationale, I suppose the Comanche practice of burying enemies up to their necks, then slicing off their eyelids so they had to stare at the sun wasn't torture?
>>Death Penalty
In 1972 the Supreme Court effectively told states to clean up their acts and change the way they kill people. They gave states four criteria for constitutional executions:
1. The manner of execution can't be degrading to human dignity
2. It can't be arbitrary
3. It can't be rejected throughout society
4. It can't be unnecessary
>>Due Process and Roe V Wade
Due process is mentioned in the 5th, 7th, and 8th Amendments. Roe V Wade is grounded in substantive due process. Like the right to marry, and the right to refuse medical treatment, the right to an abortion is not part of the constitution. But if the courts did away with substantive due process to turn back Roe V Wade, that action would pave the way to do away with other rights as well. "This is a wrinkle that is rarely discussed when the topic of abortion rights comes around. But it's very important for people to understand if they are committed to unraveling Roe. "
>>Warren's Role in Civil Rights
Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed by President Eisenhower. At the time, the Supreme Court was leaning away from Civil Rights issues. But once appointed, Warren convinced the other Justices to unanimously rule that separate but equal in public schooling was unconstitutional. Warren legally redefined Black people as human beings, not an inferior race.
>>How Autocrats Undermine Constitutions
The way elected autocrats undermine constitutions can be compared to a soccer game:
1. They have to capture the referees
2. They must capture at least some of the other team's star players
3. They have to re-write the rules of the game
This has been seen in other democracies. I find it difficult to argue that we are not seeing it in our own. Control the referees, attack opponents, ignore the rules of the game, then encourage violence. That doesn't mean we become a dictatorship. But it does mean it's very difficult to walk back from boundaries that have been pushed.
>>Other Take-Aways
Citizens must vote. More people watch the Super Bowl than vote in Presidential elections.
Systematic disenfranchisement and the believe that "my vote doesn't matter anyway."
There is a dearth of constitutional literacy. People don't understand the system, so they can't grasp what's at stake and prioritize accordingly. There's also a lot of misinformation out there.
If you're interested in better understanding the Constitution, I also highly recommend the podcast "What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law." The hosts are definitely not pro-Trump, so some will refuse to listen to it. But the current President does challenge The Constitution in ways we've never seen before, which merits examination, comparison to historic events, and discussion, regardless of political affiliation. As Wehle says in this book, "The Constitution only works insofar as we use it."
Wehle argues that The Constitution is in danger of becoming like an anti-jaywalking law. No one understands it, so the consequences for breaking it are minimized. But "The Constitution only works insofar as we use it." And to use it, we have to understand it.
I believe The Constitution is what unites us as Americans. It's not our culture (New England is as different from SoCal as Alabama is from Oregon). Certain aspect of our history unites us (World War II), but others do not (Hawaii's history is very different from the pioneers of the West and the "War of Northern Aggression"). But whether we realize it or not, our constitution is the rulebook by which American lives are governed. I took a class on understanding The Constitution in college and since, I've tried to see national current events through that lens whenever possible.
Here are just a few of the insights I gleaned from this book:
>>Taking a Knee and the First Amendment
"Forcing someone to make a pledge is forcing someone to affirm a certain belief. which comes precarious close to mandating thoughts." The First Amendment doesn't just protect free speech. It protects our individual freedom of thought. For that reason, the First Amendment is possibly the most important provision of the Constitution.
>>Guns and the Second Amendment
The Framers could have duplicated the clear wording of First Amendment and written, "Congress shall make no laws abridging gun ownership." But they didn't do that. Instead, they provided for the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" allowing that that right "shall not be infringed."
It's also important to note that the Framers took the opportunity to distinguish a "freedom" as mentioned in the First Amendment from a "right" as mentioned in the Second. A "freedom" connotes an unwritten natural law. A right is something man-made.
Ultimately, the Second Amendment debate comes down to commas. And they're important. Here's how it's written: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Argument 1: There is a right to bear arms, and also a right for states to raise militias. These are two separate things. This means even without militias, individuals can bear arms.
Argument 2: This is only about militias. Because the Federal Government was not the powerhouse it is today, and because militias were crucial at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, what the Founders intended is still debated.
>>Pleading the Fifth
The Fifth Amendment protects people from being unfairly bullied by the government through the criminal justice system. But this only kicks in if you actually do have stuff to hide. So pleading the fifth means there definitely is something you don't want to reveal. When someone pleads the 5th, the issue is brought before the judge. This person then has to show their cards privately to the judge. If the judge decides there's a fair reason to keep information hidden (protecting the innocent, or national security), the Fifth is sustained. If this person is fibbing, the judge won't let them plead the 5th.
>>The Eighth: Cruel and Unusual Punishment
When the debate over waterboarding became news during the W. administration, the torture memos from the DOJ stated that "Nothing is torture if it doesn't produce near organ failure." Yikes. Under that rationale, I suppose the Comanche practice of burying enemies up to their necks, then slicing off their eyelids so they had to stare at the sun wasn't torture?
>>Death Penalty
In 1972 the Supreme Court effectively told states to clean up their acts and change the way they kill people. They gave states four criteria for constitutional executions:
1. The manner of execution can't be degrading to human dignity
2. It can't be arbitrary
3. It can't be rejected throughout society
4. It can't be unnecessary
>>Due Process and Roe V Wade
Due process is mentioned in the 5th, 7th, and 8th Amendments. Roe V Wade is grounded in substantive due process. Like the right to marry, and the right to refuse medical treatment, the right to an abortion is not part of the constitution. But if the courts did away with substantive due process to turn back Roe V Wade, that action would pave the way to do away with other rights as well. "This is a wrinkle that is rarely discussed when the topic of abortion rights comes around. But it's very important for people to understand if they are committed to unraveling Roe. "
>>Warren's Role in Civil Rights
Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed by President Eisenhower. At the time, the Supreme Court was leaning away from Civil Rights issues. But once appointed, Warren convinced the other Justices to unanimously rule that separate but equal in public schooling was unconstitutional. Warren legally redefined Black people as human beings, not an inferior race.
>>How Autocrats Undermine Constitutions
The way elected autocrats undermine constitutions can be compared to a soccer game:
1. They have to capture the referees
2. They must capture at least some of the other team's star players
3. They have to re-write the rules of the game
This has been seen in other democracies. I find it difficult to argue that we are not seeing it in our own. Control the referees, attack opponents, ignore the rules of the game, then encourage violence. That doesn't mean we become a dictatorship. But it does mean it's very difficult to walk back from boundaries that have been pushed.
>>Other Take-Aways
Citizens must vote. More people watch the Super Bowl than vote in Presidential elections.
Systematic disenfranchisement and the believe that "my vote doesn't matter anyway."
There is a dearth of constitutional literacy. People don't understand the system, so they can't grasp what's at stake and prioritize accordingly. There's also a lot of misinformation out there.
If you're interested in better understanding the Constitution, I also highly recommend the podcast "What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law." The hosts are definitely not pro-Trump, so some will refuse to listen to it. But the current President does challenge The Constitution in ways we've never seen before, which merits examination, comparison to historic events, and discussion, regardless of political affiliation. As Wehle says in this book, "The Constitution only works insofar as we use it."
February 20, 2021
I learned so much from this book - highly recommend! Why didn’t we learn this in school???
September 24, 2019
This book is a good overview of things you may have learned in high school or college, but which you forgot. There is a tendency for people to read the constitution literally using contemporary understandings of language, and we forget that the Constitution is subject to interpretation based on current and original context. This book explains that the constitution is more of a framework for governing than a process definition.
The biggest take-away for me came at the start of the book (and it’s a recurring theme), which is that for the Constitution to mean anything, we, the people, need to make sure that it is enforced by the people we elect. Otherwise the ‘checks and balances’ implicit in the document won’t work.
Discussion and references to cases that shape our history, as well as current events. You’ll learn about the evolution of issues and gain an appreciation of the risks of wanting a more autocratic approach for things you think should happen, even as you are concerns about about in appropriate uses of power for decisions that you don’t.
The next time you are tempted to wade into a debate about what is, and is not, constitutional ,consider giving this book a skim. It may not help you in debates with those who have studied the Federalist Papers and other source material, but it can help you have more productive arguments that are based on fact and history rather than opinion.
The biggest take-away for me came at the start of the book (and it’s a recurring theme), which is that for the Constitution to mean anything, we, the people, need to make sure that it is enforced by the people we elect. Otherwise the ‘checks and balances’ implicit in the document won’t work.
Discussion and references to cases that shape our history, as well as current events. You’ll learn about the evolution of issues and gain an appreciation of the risks of wanting a more autocratic approach for things you think should happen, even as you are concerns about about in appropriate uses of power for decisions that you don’t.
The next time you are tempted to wade into a debate about what is, and is not, constitutional ,consider giving this book a skim. It may not help you in debates with those who have studied the Federalist Papers and other source material, but it can help you have more productive arguments that are based on fact and history rather than opinion.
June 16, 2020
This is a great guide to what a) the Constitution actually says and b) how the text has been interpreted over the last few centuries. It dispels common myths, traces legislative, judicial, and executive trends, and outlines the current and future threats to the Constitution's continued viability. She makes an incredibly compelling case for safeguarding the Constitution in an era when Americans take its protections for granted, while concurrently embracing anti-Constitutional and anti-democratic rhetoric with open arms.
What is interesting here is that for a people who are deliriously proud of being the world's oldest democracy, many, if not most, American institutions are fundamentally undemocratic. While we've been content to count on political etiquette and social norms to guard against the worst abuses that can come about from these institutions, Wehle charts how complacent the American public has become, and how little Constitutional protections actually matter if they are not enforced by Americans of any and all political leanings. This is a must-read for concerned citizens--guess what, it's not just you and you're not crazy; our political institutions actually have become wildly partisan, unproductive, and dangerous to democracy over the last generation.
I listened to the audiobook, which is read by the author, but I think readers should go for the print on this one. The outlining of case law is probably better understood in text.
What is interesting here is that for a people who are deliriously proud of being the world's oldest democracy, many, if not most, American institutions are fundamentally undemocratic. While we've been content to count on political etiquette and social norms to guard against the worst abuses that can come about from these institutions, Wehle charts how complacent the American public has become, and how little Constitutional protections actually matter if they are not enforced by Americans of any and all political leanings. This is a must-read for concerned citizens--guess what, it's not just you and you're not crazy; our political institutions actually have become wildly partisan, unproductive, and dangerous to democracy over the last generation.
I listened to the audiobook, which is read by the author, but I think readers should go for the print on this one. The outlining of case law is probably better understood in text.
August 12, 2019
Kimberly has created a very accessable book that accurately goes through the Constitution, it's history, how it's been interpreted over the years, and why it matters to ordinary citizens. As a left leaning individual,I honnestly thought that she did take a very neutral interpretation of the Constitution and what its impact is on the creation of laws in the country (that is, what the Federal Government can and cannot do), and that was her stated intention.
While I commend her for her efforts, the vast majority of right-leaning people who have an opinion on the Constitution will dismiss her as a far left individual who knows nothing of the Constitution and should be ignored and ridiculed as much as possible (although let's be realistic, she does have a left-of-center political viewpoint when talking about issues in our society not directly related to the Constitution, which happens a lot in the book).
Either way, I'd say this is an excellent starting off book for both people new to politics and those who have been involved in in for quite some time.
A solid 4/5 stars
While I commend her for her efforts, the vast majority of right-leaning people who have an opinion on the Constitution will dismiss her as a far left individual who knows nothing of the Constitution and should be ignored and ridiculed as much as possible (although let's be realistic, she does have a left-of-center political viewpoint when talking about issues in our society not directly related to the Constitution, which happens a lot in the book).
Either way, I'd say this is an excellent starting off book for both people new to politics and those who have been involved in in for quite some time.
A solid 4/5 stars
March 31, 2025
Pretty interesting and a good extremely ground-zero introduction to Constitutional Law. The beginning was a drag but parts 2 and 3 were quite compelling. New fear unlocked: another constitutional convention. Jesus Christ, wtf, didn’t know that was a possibility! Anyways we need to reform absolutely everything. But it is mind-blowing just how precise and accurate the framers of the Constitution were on matters of autocracy and tyranny. What an excellent document, with its flaws, of course. Also I’d consider this a quick read. Recommend but also it’s gonna make you want to explode—the violations to the Constitution happening right now are egregious and the author must be LOSING. HER. MIND. (She already was in 2018.)
October 20, 2019
I'm afraid that those in America who most need to read this book are unlikely to do so. Wehle makes a strong case that, regardless of political ideology, if "we the people" don't do all we can to preserve the Constitution, the future of our democracy becomes increasingly tenuous. Frightening.
May 17, 2020
As a former school lawyer who spent over a decade handling cases that involved a number of Constitutional issues, including matters under the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Equal Protection cases, and election disputes, I enjoy reading about the Constitution and its application to our constantly evolving society. This book sounded like an interesting read, and for the most part it was, but it just didn't provide the kind of insightful, thought-provoking analysis it promised.
Written by Kim Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, this book is a great introduction to the Constitution and one that most lay people, who haven't done any deep study of the Constitution either in college or law school, would probably find helpful. Professor Wehle does a nice job of walking the reader through the basic structure of the Constitution, the nuances of language in various parts of its text, and the relationship between the different branches of government. She also uses a variety of examples, both historical and modern, to illustrate her explanations.
So while I didn't necessarily learn anything new (except in her chapter addressing campaign finance, which I have always found confusing), the book was a solid refresher on the Constitution's provisions and a great reminder about why it is so important to pay close attention to how it is (or is not) being adhered to by our elected officials and judges.
However, it only gets three stars for a couple of reasons. First, I found Wehle's some of gross mischaracterizations to be unconscionable for an "expert" on the Constitution. For example, in her chapter on the First Amendment, one of her examples showing how/why the Supreme Court can regulate the "free exercise" of religion is that "Certain Mormon men claim that their religion requires them to have multiple wives." This is not only completely false, it's bigoted and she should know better.
Second, I didn't like how she made such an emphatic point about voting, and the importance of "we the people" exercising our right to put people in office who care about the Constitution, but then she literally glossed over one of the biggest barriers to voting, which is gerrymandering. She mentions it and gives a couple of pages to its explanation, but then basically throws up her hands and says there is nothing we can do to stop it--which I think is both inaccurate and a cop-out.
So if you're looking for a fairly simplistic (and mostly accurate) overview of the Constitution and some basic information you could discuss around the dinner table with your family, this is a good read. But if you're wanting highly intelligent, sophisticated analysis of our government's "manual," you may want to look elsewhere.
Written by Kim Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, this book is a great introduction to the Constitution and one that most lay people, who haven't done any deep study of the Constitution either in college or law school, would probably find helpful. Professor Wehle does a nice job of walking the reader through the basic structure of the Constitution, the nuances of language in various parts of its text, and the relationship between the different branches of government. She also uses a variety of examples, both historical and modern, to illustrate her explanations.
So while I didn't necessarily learn anything new (except in her chapter addressing campaign finance, which I have always found confusing), the book was a solid refresher on the Constitution's provisions and a great reminder about why it is so important to pay close attention to how it is (or is not) being adhered to by our elected officials and judges.
However, it only gets three stars for a couple of reasons. First, I found Wehle's some of gross mischaracterizations to be unconscionable for an "expert" on the Constitution. For example, in her chapter on the First Amendment, one of her examples showing how/why the Supreme Court can regulate the "free exercise" of religion is that "Certain Mormon men claim that their religion requires them to have multiple wives." This is not only completely false, it's bigoted and she should know better.
Second, I didn't like how she made such an emphatic point about voting, and the importance of "we the people" exercising our right to put people in office who care about the Constitution, but then she literally glossed over one of the biggest barriers to voting, which is gerrymandering. She mentions it and gives a couple of pages to its explanation, but then basically throws up her hands and says there is nothing we can do to stop it--which I think is both inaccurate and a cop-out.
So if you're looking for a fairly simplistic (and mostly accurate) overview of the Constitution and some basic information you could discuss around the dinner table with your family, this is a good read. But if you're wanting highly intelligent, sophisticated analysis of our government's "manual," you may want to look elsewhere.
January 7, 2022
This book, or something like it, should be required reading for everyone in the United States of America. It is, as the title indicates, a guide as to how to objectively read the constitution, not the author’s interpretation of it. Many hot-button issues of the day are put in context with the bare-bones words of the constitution itself, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation/application of those words as those issues have been addressed. It is written in laymen’s terms and is easy reading. The last (third) section, “Why Care”, contains many of the author’s interpretations and concerns for recent trends in dismantling the constitution and constitutional protections. Some might find that to be a somewhat liberal slant, but the facts cited are irrefutable and the concerns very real. This is well worth reading.
August 15, 2021
An okay book on the constitution and American government. A pretty easy read. She rarely gets too technical, so approachable for anyone no matter how little prior knowledge of our system of government. BUT....it should be titled "A Liberal's Guide to Reading the Constitution". Although I completely agree with her opinion (i.e. Trump is a racist misogynist asshole bent on becoming a tyrant and the republican party enabling his power grab is bad for the country), I would prefer a book with a more balanced and objective view of the issues.
July 18, 2020
Someone in my book club picked this for us. As someone who has already studied this material quite a bit, I didn’t gain anything new from it.
I’m not sure of the intended audience because I get the impression most people with an interest in the topic would already have this knowledge from other sources. If this was where they turned to gain a better understanding of the United States Constitution, then it would be a fine choice.
I’m not sure of the intended audience because I get the impression most people with an interest in the topic would already have this knowledge from other sources. If this was where they turned to gain a better understanding of the United States Constitution, then it would be a fine choice.
July 2, 2024
This is an excellent read, schooling even the most academic in the critical minutia of the Constitution against relatively up to the minute goings on in today’s federal government. Every student and tracher of hostory should read and annotate this. Despite a clear anti trump bias (to which i can subscribe), wehle does a remarkable job supporting her strong claims throughout. Really good stuff.
July 16, 2024
If you are wondering if something the news reports, items on social media or just want to if whatever is Constitutionally correct, I highly recommend this book. I listened on audio (narrated by the author) and took my time, like a chapter or two per day in order to process what I as hearing. Some questions were answered, for me at least. For instance, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, but the idea is. I looked into this because of recent Supreme Court decisions and wanting to know exactly how presidential powers are checked is important to me. Plus my oldest asked me a question I couldn't answer. I got some answers and also some new worries, but definitely a better understanding of the Constitution and why we need to pay attention.
February 22, 2025
Reading Book Challenge
If this book was not part of a book challenge, I wouldn't have read it. I had wonderful history teachers/instructors in highschool and college and this book almost dumbed down the Constitution for me. I guess this book is "okay" if you were never taught about the Constitution, but unless you're using it as a learning aid I would give it a hard pass.
If this book was not part of a book challenge, I wouldn't have read it. I had wonderful history teachers/instructors in highschool and college and this book almost dumbed down the Constitution for me. I guess this book is "okay" if you were never taught about the Constitution, but unless you're using it as a learning aid I would give it a hard pass.
February 1, 2021
As someone that knows very little about the constitution and law in general, this was an incredible book. Every explanation started from “scratch” and it was relatively easy to keep up. Definitely a book I’ll keep referring too. I’ve also plastered it with highlights and notes!!
March 28, 2021
This took me a while to read as I wasn’t always in the mood, but I learned so much and it has definitely changed the way I think about US politics and government. And very applicable to today!
January 11, 2022
Closer to a 3.5. A basic introduction to the Constitution, for sure.
August 22, 2022
This book was very informative and interesting
November 29, 2019
“As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged.” - William O. Douglas
WHAT IS THIS BOOK ABOUT?
- The book includes the Constitution in its entirety and covers nearly every significant aspect of the text, from the powers of the President and how the three branches of government are designed to hold each other accountable, to what it means to have individual rights- including free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to an abortion.
- Finally, the book explains why it has never been more important than now for Americans to know how our Constitution works- and why, if we don’t step in to protect it now, we could lose its protections forever.
CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SURE THING
- Let’s be clear about one thing, for starters: the Constitution is not a bulwark. By this I mean it does not erect an impenetrable wall around the citizens of the United States to defend them against tyranny and abuses. It is porous. It needs shoring up from time to time.
USE IT OR LOSE IT
- if a provision of the Constitution is not enforced, it becomes worthless.
KEY TENETS TO ENSURING DEMOCRACY
- Having a cop on the block matters. The Constitution means something only if it’s enforced.
- There is a big difference between policy and politics. Politics is about ideology. Policy is about using data and facts to reach a conclusion or argue for or against a particular outcome. Be careful not to confuse the two.
- Once a precedent is in the government’s “toolbox,” it can be picked up for use at any time by any partisan. When government actors push existing boundaries, they expand their power. Usually for keeps.
- “Strict” reading of the Constitution is a myth. There is no way to apply the Constitution without interpreting it, period.
- American values are not in the Constitution. But soft norms are critical to preserving individual liberties and ensuring an accountable government.
- No constitutional power is absolute. The Constitution should be viewed through a lens of accountability for all government actors, full stop.
- With law, it all depends. Constitutional questions are squishy, not black-and-white.
POWER [FROM] THE PEOPLE
- A constitution is just a set of rules for how power must be shared and executed. The power comes from somewhere else...The US government’s power comes from the people.
“I’M PRETTY SURE HE STOLE THAT FROM MASTER YODA...”
- [I] t is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
POWERS GAINED/LOST OVER TIME
- In the words of Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who—under George W. Bush—headed the DOJ office that advises the White House on constitutional matters, “You can’t be in that office with all its enormous responsibilities—when things don’t happen, you get blamed for it—and not exercise all the powers that have accrued to it over time.”
HOW DEMOCRACIES DIE
- They outline four elements to a democracy falling into a dictatorship: (1) control the referees, (2) attack opponents, (3) ignore the rules of the game, and (4) encourage violence.
WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?
- As for what to do about our crumbling democracy, it’s hard to ignore the bottom line: vote.
- A preliminary step for voters is figuring out how to wade through information and identify what’s worth believing and what is bunk.
- The other means of maximizing the quality of information you take in is to read original source documents.
FACTOIDS
- In Latin, habeas corpus means “you shall have the body.”
- Since 1976, 144 people have been released from death row on grounds of innocence—that’s 10 percent of the total number sentenced to death.
- Filibustering (a term that stems from the Dutch word for “pirate”
- South Carolina’s J. Strom Thurmond holds the record for the longest speech, which lasted twenty-four hours and eighteen minutes in a filibuster over the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- The term gerrymandering comes from the name of a nineteenth-century governor of Massachusetts named Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, while he was in office, a new voting district was drawn in a shape that favored Gerry’s party and resembled a salamander—hence the name gerrymandering.
BONUS:
- TED talk on ‘holacracy’ (organizations without bosses or titles): https://youtu.be/tJxfJGo-vkI
- Marbury v Madison explained/significance: https://youtu.be/hOvsZyqRfCo
WHAT IS THIS BOOK ABOUT?
- The book includes the Constitution in its entirety and covers nearly every significant aspect of the text, from the powers of the President and how the three branches of government are designed to hold each other accountable, to what it means to have individual rights- including free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to an abortion.
- Finally, the book explains why it has never been more important than now for Americans to know how our Constitution works- and why, if we don’t step in to protect it now, we could lose its protections forever.
CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SURE THING
- Let’s be clear about one thing, for starters: the Constitution is not a bulwark. By this I mean it does not erect an impenetrable wall around the citizens of the United States to defend them against tyranny and abuses. It is porous. It needs shoring up from time to time.
USE IT OR LOSE IT
- if a provision of the Constitution is not enforced, it becomes worthless.
KEY TENETS TO ENSURING DEMOCRACY
- Having a cop on the block matters. The Constitution means something only if it’s enforced.
- There is a big difference between policy and politics. Politics is about ideology. Policy is about using data and facts to reach a conclusion or argue for or against a particular outcome. Be careful not to confuse the two.
- Once a precedent is in the government’s “toolbox,” it can be picked up for use at any time by any partisan. When government actors push existing boundaries, they expand their power. Usually for keeps.
- “Strict” reading of the Constitution is a myth. There is no way to apply the Constitution without interpreting it, period.
- American values are not in the Constitution. But soft norms are critical to preserving individual liberties and ensuring an accountable government.
- No constitutional power is absolute. The Constitution should be viewed through a lens of accountability for all government actors, full stop.
- With law, it all depends. Constitutional questions are squishy, not black-and-white.
POWER [FROM] THE PEOPLE
- A constitution is just a set of rules for how power must be shared and executed. The power comes from somewhere else...The US government’s power comes from the people.
“I’M PRETTY SURE HE STOLE THAT FROM MASTER YODA...”
- [I] t is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
POWERS GAINED/LOST OVER TIME
- In the words of Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who—under George W. Bush—headed the DOJ office that advises the White House on constitutional matters, “You can’t be in that office with all its enormous responsibilities—when things don’t happen, you get blamed for it—and not exercise all the powers that have accrued to it over time.”
HOW DEMOCRACIES DIE
- They outline four elements to a democracy falling into a dictatorship: (1) control the referees, (2) attack opponents, (3) ignore the rules of the game, and (4) encourage violence.
WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?
- As for what to do about our crumbling democracy, it’s hard to ignore the bottom line: vote.
- A preliminary step for voters is figuring out how to wade through information and identify what’s worth believing and what is bunk.
- The other means of maximizing the quality of information you take in is to read original source documents.
FACTOIDS
- In Latin, habeas corpus means “you shall have the body.”
- Since 1976, 144 people have been released from death row on grounds of innocence—that’s 10 percent of the total number sentenced to death.
- Filibustering (a term that stems from the Dutch word for “pirate”
- South Carolina’s J. Strom Thurmond holds the record for the longest speech, which lasted twenty-four hours and eighteen minutes in a filibuster over the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- The term gerrymandering comes from the name of a nineteenth-century governor of Massachusetts named Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, while he was in office, a new voting district was drawn in a shape that favored Gerry’s party and resembled a salamander—hence the name gerrymandering.
BONUS:
- TED talk on ‘holacracy’ (organizations without bosses or titles): https://youtu.be/tJxfJGo-vkI
- Marbury v Madison explained/significance: https://youtu.be/hOvsZyqRfCo
July 2, 2020
I didn't know what I didn't know.
June 15, 2025
This book is a great read for someone who isn't a lawyer and doesn't have expertise in the area but would like to be a little smarter about the Constitution. However, due to recent Supreme Court decisions, some of the discussions are outdated (Roe v. Wade and Miranda rights). Still, this book has a lot of value to the layperson.
January 16, 2021
Plan to read this book over several times in the years to come. This book will provide great perspective on how the Trump years strained and tested our Constitution.
December 4, 2019
This is, without a doubt, the best book I've read this year. It should be read by everyone no matter their political opinion, it is that important.
Since November 2016, I have learned more about politics, law, and government than I care to admit. White gives volumes of easy to understand information on our country's most important document, taking many of the aspects of the Constitution and explaining them in up to the minute fashion. She uses current events in order to show exactly what the Constitution says or does not say about the issues.
When we hear that something is unconstitutional, White explains just how little the document says on a particular subject. Instead she relates what is said versus what case law has decided. Many times, what we think is there is actually built on opinion created and elaborated upon since the Constitution was first ratified. Much depends on strict versus loose readings of the law.
White does appear to be biased and seems to share my opinions, but this does not mean her thoughts are to be ignored. Instead, what she shares are valid points based on her understanding of law and history. If she says that an individual in our government is acting in ways that will harm the country, she has solid reasons for her opinions, not the knee jerk opinions I and others may have. I truly feel that if she told me my opinion was incorrect, I would re-study the issue and have a firmer grasp on the situation.
White's use of history, government, law - case law included - is what we ALL need to read in order to form solid arguments.
The final chapters of the book are terrifying. Her tracing of the many ways our political system has changed should wake us up and motivate us to wrest control from those seeking to maintain power without allowing differing opinions to be brought to the table. In this, she paints a picture of the end of our country.
I believe that whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you need to read this important book about OUR country.
Since November 2016, I have learned more about politics, law, and government than I care to admit. White gives volumes of easy to understand information on our country's most important document, taking many of the aspects of the Constitution and explaining them in up to the minute fashion. She uses current events in order to show exactly what the Constitution says or does not say about the issues.
When we hear that something is unconstitutional, White explains just how little the document says on a particular subject. Instead she relates what is said versus what case law has decided. Many times, what we think is there is actually built on opinion created and elaborated upon since the Constitution was first ratified. Much depends on strict versus loose readings of the law.
White does appear to be biased and seems to share my opinions, but this does not mean her thoughts are to be ignored. Instead, what she shares are valid points based on her understanding of law and history. If she says that an individual in our government is acting in ways that will harm the country, she has solid reasons for her opinions, not the knee jerk opinions I and others may have. I truly feel that if she told me my opinion was incorrect, I would re-study the issue and have a firmer grasp on the situation.
White's use of history, government, law - case law included - is what we ALL need to read in order to form solid arguments.
The final chapters of the book are terrifying. Her tracing of the many ways our political system has changed should wake us up and motivate us to wrest control from those seeking to maintain power without allowing differing opinions to be brought to the table. In this, she paints a picture of the end of our country.
I believe that whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you need to read this important book about OUR country.
February 1, 2020
More people watch the Super Bowl than vote in Presidential elections. Even less vote in non-presidential elections. Part of the reason is disenfranchisement. Part of the reason is many people do not understand the system and so do not grasp what is at stake or fall victim to misinformation. The Constitution is just a piece of paper. If it is not enforced, it is meaningless. Most constitutional norms find their strength in unwritten social contracts. Once citizens and elected officials allow a provision to be ignored, it will only be enforced again after a hard-fought battle- if ever. This book attempts to outline the most important features of the U.S. Constitution and explain why it is vital the average citizen and voter take their roles seriously.
The book is short (only 265 actual pages- the remainder being footnotes and a copy of the constitution) and is written in an easily understood style. The book begins with an explanation of the various means of constitutional interpretation with a brief history lesson with many examples. The author then walks readers through the separation of powers doctrine and how the three branches of government work to hold each other accountable, as well as describing the historical erosion of congressional and judicial power in favor of the executive branch over time. From there, a handful of amendments are explained with an outline of the most pertinent Supreme Court cases which clarify meaning in practice. The book ends with a call to action outlining why the average person should care and how fragile and porous our system of government is without the enforcement of norms.
The world is vastly different than is was in 1787. It is almost unrecognizable from 1987. Our current form of government exists only to the extent in which the citizens understand and value its underlying rules. This book is a good place to remind ourselves of that.
The book is short (only 265 actual pages- the remainder being footnotes and a copy of the constitution) and is written in an easily understood style. The book begins with an explanation of the various means of constitutional interpretation with a brief history lesson with many examples. The author then walks readers through the separation of powers doctrine and how the three branches of government work to hold each other accountable, as well as describing the historical erosion of congressional and judicial power in favor of the executive branch over time. From there, a handful of amendments are explained with an outline of the most pertinent Supreme Court cases which clarify meaning in practice. The book ends with a call to action outlining why the average person should care and how fragile and porous our system of government is without the enforcement of norms.
The world is vastly different than is was in 1787. It is almost unrecognizable from 1987. Our current form of government exists only to the extent in which the citizens understand and value its underlying rules. This book is a good place to remind ourselves of that.
July 22, 2020
This book gave me so many things to consider.
"not... a true democracy...would allow irrational... instead opted for a republic" "people must hold elected representative accountable for violations of the Constitution"
"failure to uphold the Constitution.... just this once, future officeholders will understand that they can get away with violating... in the future"
"they make many, many more laws than Congress does, yet the people who run agencies are not elected"
"what constitutes sufficient injury... inherently subjective"
"Heller...to defend yourself...blew...precedent... in connection with militias"
"in my humble opinion, if the court is to turn precedent on its head, it should probably do so unanimously"
"the government cannot take away all guns...but the government is not constitutionally forbidden from restricting guns either"
"police officers can't do their jobs if they are afraid of well-meaning actions"
"there are many things we all freely do, and which we all take as a given, that are not expressed in the Constitution...whom- to marry without government weigh-in, whether to have children, how to raise those children, and what jobs or careers we choose to have"
"we've had elections in which the losing candidates won the popular vote"
"the term gerrymandering ... Elbridge Gerry... voting district was drawn in a shape that favored Gerry's party and resembled a salamander"
"today people across the nation are calling for another constitutional convention to fundamentally change the text of the Constitution itself. This little-known fact is extraordinary...last time... 1787"
"Constitution...stood the test of 230 years' time"
"not... a true democracy...would allow irrational... instead opted for a republic" "people must hold elected representative accountable for violations of the Constitution"
"failure to uphold the Constitution.... just this once, future officeholders will understand that they can get away with violating... in the future"
"they make many, many more laws than Congress does, yet the people who run agencies are not elected"
"what constitutes sufficient injury... inherently subjective"
"Heller...to defend yourself...blew...precedent... in connection with militias"
"in my humble opinion, if the court is to turn precedent on its head, it should probably do so unanimously"
"the government cannot take away all guns...but the government is not constitutionally forbidden from restricting guns either"
"police officers can't do their jobs if they are afraid of well-meaning actions"
"there are many things we all freely do, and which we all take as a given, that are not expressed in the Constitution...whom- to marry without government weigh-in, whether to have children, how to raise those children, and what jobs or careers we choose to have"
"we've had elections in which the losing candidates won the popular vote"
"the term gerrymandering ... Elbridge Gerry... voting district was drawn in a shape that favored Gerry's party and resembled a salamander"
"today people across the nation are calling for another constitutional convention to fundamentally change the text of the Constitution itself. This little-known fact is extraordinary...last time... 1787"
"Constitution...stood the test of 230 years' time"
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 132 reviews