What do you think?
A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States Containing a Brief Commentary on Every Clause, Explaining the True Nature, Reasons, and ... Use of School Libraries and General Readers
This is a reproduction of the original artefact. Generally these books are created from careful scans of the original. This allows us to preserve the book accurately and present it in the way the author intended. Since the original versions are generally quite old, there may occasionally be certain imperfections within these reproductions. We're happy to make these classics available again for future generations to enjoy!
- GenresLawPoliticsNonfiction
390 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1834
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
March 11, 2026
This is a great book, if you want to see comments on the constitution and Bill of Rights from a Supreme Court Justice who was born shortly before the constitution was ratified.
The book starts with the history of the colonies and discusses the revolution, the confederation and then the origin of the constitution. After that it discusses all the powers vested in the constitution clause by clause.
Some interesting points:
The “necessary and proper” clause was intended to narrowly apply to carrying out only the enumerated powers and was not seen as an open ended invitation to legislate all aspects of citizen life.
Justice Story notes that war is “a dreadful calamity” and thus belongs to Congress where “the states and all the people are represented”. Justice Story also says that this power should not rest with the president, due to the possibility of “the rashness of a single mind.” Of course the war powers act did not exist when this was written in 1840, but I think Justice Story would have taken a dim view of it.
Justice Story recognized that the US was founded on Christian culture and he said that “an attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would create universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”
Justice Story did not approve of large standing armies. He explicitly saw the 2nd amendment as a check upon “arbitrary power of rulers”. He never mentioned hunting.
Overall it was quite interesting to read the words of someone who was intimately aware of the federal government intended. It is quite different from the government we have today..
The book starts with the history of the colonies and discusses the revolution, the confederation and then the origin of the constitution. After that it discusses all the powers vested in the constitution clause by clause.
Some interesting points:
The “necessary and proper” clause was intended to narrowly apply to carrying out only the enumerated powers and was not seen as an open ended invitation to legislate all aspects of citizen life.
Justice Story notes that war is “a dreadful calamity” and thus belongs to Congress where “the states and all the people are represented”. Justice Story also says that this power should not rest with the president, due to the possibility of “the rashness of a single mind.” Of course the war powers act did not exist when this was written in 1840, but I think Justice Story would have taken a dim view of it.
Justice Story recognized that the US was founded on Christian culture and he said that “an attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would create universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”
Justice Story did not approve of large standing armies. He explicitly saw the 2nd amendment as a check upon “arbitrary power of rulers”. He never mentioned hunting.
Overall it was quite interesting to read the words of someone who was intimately aware of the federal government intended. It is quite different from the government we have today..
December 3, 2019
Fascinating book by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who served from 1812 to 1845 on the Supreme Court. It's especially interesting to read a book about the U.S. Constitution written by a SCJ that served so early in our country's history, and very close to the time when we ratified the Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, confirming the fundamental rights of its citizens. His opinions often mirror my own, and his admiration for the U.S. Constitution is plainly obvious throughout the book. I recommend this one to any reader interested in exploring the 'originalist' view of the constitution, or to anyone curious about early American law.
July 22, 2016
Joseph Story was a Justice of the United States Supreme Court (starting when he was 32 years old). He was also one of the most respected legal scholars of his day. He wrote treatises on Equity, Bailments, Conflicts of Laws, Agency, and other topics. His Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) was regarded as authoritative as soon as it was published and remains so today. This book here is a shorter version of the Commentaries intended both for private reading and for use as a high school textbook. It has a lot to commend it.
It is much more legally detailed than other commentaries I have seen. Story didn’t shy away from complicated legal concepts when it was necessary to explain them. But he did explain them in an understandable way.
Story’s comments are decidedly federalist. He rejected the idea that the Constitution formed a mere league of states or a compact. Rather, it formed a national government with sovereignty, while still preserving some sovereignty to the states in certain areas. His view, of course, was vindicated later, but it was also supported at the time by history and the text of the Constitution itself.
This book begins with an excellent short history of the colonies in America, their laws, the revolution, the Articles of Confederation, and the framing of the Constitution. He explains that the Constitution was a product of experience, not theory. That is why it works. He sets forth the proper way to read the Constitution – the way ordinary people would read it.
Story addresses the entire Constitution in this book, so I won’t comment on all of it. But I will mention some of the highlights for me. He spends 130 pages on Article I. That is the way it should be. The people are the source of governmental power. So the people’s representatives in Congress should possess the greatest power in the government.
I also love that he spends far more time discussing the structure of the government than he does on the Bill of Rights. The reason this is important is because the structure of government is far more important than a declaration of rights. If you doubt that, please look up the bill of rights from the USSR’s constitution. It was much broader and more impressive sounding than our Bill of Rights, but it was worthless in practice because the government was structured in a way that those rights were not respected or enforced. And, as Story explains elsewhere in the book, a constitution has to be upheld by the culture and habits of the people or it will be ineffective.
Joseph Story was a great jurist. But he also saw himself as an educator and hoped that he could influence the future of his nation through teaching. This book shows how well he succeeded. You should read it.
It is much more legally detailed than other commentaries I have seen. Story didn’t shy away from complicated legal concepts when it was necessary to explain them. But he did explain them in an understandable way.
Story’s comments are decidedly federalist. He rejected the idea that the Constitution formed a mere league of states or a compact. Rather, it formed a national government with sovereignty, while still preserving some sovereignty to the states in certain areas. His view, of course, was vindicated later, but it was also supported at the time by history and the text of the Constitution itself.
This book begins with an excellent short history of the colonies in America, their laws, the revolution, the Articles of Confederation, and the framing of the Constitution. He explains that the Constitution was a product of experience, not theory. That is why it works. He sets forth the proper way to read the Constitution – the way ordinary people would read it.
Story addresses the entire Constitution in this book, so I won’t comment on all of it. But I will mention some of the highlights for me. He spends 130 pages on Article I. That is the way it should be. The people are the source of governmental power. So the people’s representatives in Congress should possess the greatest power in the government.
I also love that he spends far more time discussing the structure of the government than he does on the Bill of Rights. The reason this is important is because the structure of government is far more important than a declaration of rights. If you doubt that, please look up the bill of rights from the USSR’s constitution. It was much broader and more impressive sounding than our Bill of Rights, but it was worthless in practice because the government was structured in a way that those rights were not respected or enforced. And, as Story explains elsewhere in the book, a constitution has to be upheld by the culture and habits of the people or it will be ineffective.
Joseph Story was a great jurist. But he also saw himself as an educator and hoped that he could influence the future of his nation through teaching. This book shows how well he succeeded. You should read it.
Want to Read
June 10, 2011Book online: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/li...
February 22, 2016
Justice Story's own condensation of his longer Commentaries, this book is an excellent and very readable summary of the Constitution, its structure, and its meaning.
February 11, 2015
A reprinting of Story's description of how the Constitution has become interpreted over time.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews