The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides) (The Politically Incorrect Guides)

First, it's important to note that the PIG series seems, on its face, to be less-than-serious efforts at deep thought. The title and styling of these books may lead some to believe that they are less "academic" in nature. But that would be a grave mistake for anyone to make, especially in this case. The author of this particular book is decidedly deserving of the term "expert" in the two categories primarily addressed in this book (he holds doctorates in both history and law and is widely published) and knows the subject matter possibly better than anyone alive. In light of that, this is an important book in many regards, but specifically on the three subjects listed in my title. In regards to law, the author explains how little historical knowledge is possessed by most law school graduates, which greatly affects how they interpret the Constitution. This impacts the political process, indirectly due to the number of politicians who are law school graduates, and directly by grossly coloring the lenses of people's glasses regarding their views of what is and is not Constitutional. The cure for this is, of course, an actual look at what the Constitution meant to those who ratified it and where (and why), exactly, those views fell out of favor in a historical analysis. This is not heavy reading in that it does not require tremendous intelligence to digest, but it is heavy in terms of implications. If the author is correct -- and we have no reason to believe he is not -- then most of those in political power in our country have a view of the Constitution that is not only flawed, but almost upside down in its understanding. I'd like to suggest that people like Pelosi, Schumer, et al read this book, but I also know that I might as well as for a unicorn for my birthday as expect them to understand what the Constitution actually means. For now I will just recommend it to friends and students and hope for the best.

Wow, the more I read the more I realize I don't know lots. It makes sense that our kids don't know about their history and their parents as well seem to not know the role that they are responsible to play because the the school system failed them purposefully. The key thing to this book is that the Supreme Court has taken the States power over and over again for many years and it is so common that they are not even questioned about the gross misuse of power; the people are unaware that it is our job to do this and so their kids will inherit a US that wants them to hate it so the globalists will then control them and sneak in socialism which will not live up to its promises. It is also important to note that the lawyers are taught the constitution based upon the Supreme Court Justices who have grossly misused their power and they use historical judgements that have trampled upon our constitutional rights. They are taught to see this is a normal thing and even that it is a good thing and perhaps don't really see what is at stake or don't relish what we have as a form of government and our society and liberties that all come from what now is seen as an old funny pages in a heap of worthless papers. We can teach the kids how to enjoy being a part of something bigger than a selfish self by restoring these divine rights and this book opened my mind to how I didn't know these Justices have been greedily power grabbing and the effects that it has caused. Great book

Dr. Gutzman tells the true history and meaning of the effort to and ratification of the present Constitution. As opposed to the 8th grade version in about every book, he dares to tell that the Philadelphia Convention was of questionable legal authority, met in secret, barred its members from discussing any matter that went on, and even has forthrightness to explain how some of the Framers said one thing in the convention and other thing in public during the ratification debates. Shocking, some (Hamilton) lied. I have only heard one other scholar besides Dr. Gutzman explain that the 14th Amendment was not properly adopted, my old professor, the late Dr. Forrest MacDonald. I especially appreciated his section on the so-called "Federalist Papers" in which he explained that they had nothing to do with getting the Constitution ratified, even in New York as the voting was done by the time half came out. Next to the Bible, most traditional conservatives regard the "Federalist Papers" as sacred. Actually, they are good to have as they document Alexander Hamilton's lies and fraud. This book is for everyone from maybe a 10th grader to adults and is a must for lawyers and judges, who do not learn the Constitution in law school, they learn "constitutional law" which is the law according the the Supreme Court-bogus, in other words.

The author is so contrarian that he does not hesitate to contradict himself. He has that typical Libertarian habit of deriding the US Constitution when it's convenient and then bewailing any deviation from it when it suits his purposes. He anguishes over the fact that the Federalist Papers are ignored in Constitutional Law courses and then spends the rest of the book complaining that people insist on reading such useless bunk. Many of the Politically Incorrect Guides are great reads and informative. This book isn't one of them.

An interesting read for someone new to trying to understand the US Constitution, but the author really wants to complain about how judges and politicians "ignore" and "misinterpret" what the author claims is the correct (meaning "his") interpretation of what the Founders and Founding Generation intended. The truth is, they couldn't agree on what they wanted, they just knew the Articles of Confederation weren't up to the task of nationbuilding. The author even claims many Founders didn't want to build a nation, which is true when it comes to people like Patrick Henry. But Henry didn't carry the day in his attempt to defeat the 13 colonies' willingness to give their new Constitution a try. We are still working on implementing its concepts. Unlike the author, I don't think America will ever stop interpreting these late 19th century precepts to the needs of a changing world and country. At least, I hope not.

One of the most glaring deficiencies in our federal government today is it's complete disregard for the set of rules that should govern its behavior, limiting its power and scope: the Constitution. Today, it's unpopular to say government isn't the best solution to our country's deep problems. But Gutzman, like a man willing to state publicly that he likes the music of Van Halen with Sammy Hagar singing lead, is willing to tell the truth even when it goes against the grain. Perhaps if we'd heeded the Constitution in the first place and the Federal Reserve had never been unconstitutionally created, Alan Greenspan wouldn't have been able to set artificially low interest rates in the early 2000s, extending the life and size of a financial bubble that desperately needed deflating, regardless of the inevitable pain to financial markets. Perhaps too, quasi-government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wouldn't have existed or been forced to make home loans to unqualified borrowers. The benefits to our country of adhering to the Constitution would be real and immediate and few people have the courage and thoughtfulness to articulate that point as clearly as Gutzman does in this book. I rate the book four stars, instead of five because of my firm belief in the sanctity of freedom, civil rights and liberty. As Gutzman rightfully points out, consistent application of the Constitution doesn't automatically lead immediately to greater freedoms. He refers specifically to the specious judicial legerdemain of the Supreme Court regarding civil rights. While it has brought more freedom to some in our country, it did so by blatantly usurping powers the Constitution clearly leaves to the states or individual citizens. I think civil rights is an important enough facet of American society for Gutzman to then explain how it could have been achieved with Constitutional legitimacy. While I'm sure Gutzman addresses this point in other writings, I think it should have been quickly addressed here. It's great to read such an impartial call for the application of our Constitution as its ratifiers intended it. Gutzman points out many historic examples of both parties abusing the Constitution when it served their needs. I highly recommend this book. Adherence to our Constitution would have helped us avoid many of our nation's current problems, and excitingly, can still help us find our way back onto the right track. Better?

I found this book fascinating my first read through, but it's even more handy as a resource at my fingertips when questions arise. This would be an excellent gift for any highschooler or college student, but I think everyone could benefit from having a copy of this to read and refer back to. You'd be surprised how well it settles debates, and if you read it prior to getting into those debates, you will also have the satisfaction of being on the winning side.

Great book that every patriotic American should read! This book will reignite that flame for all patriots and those who don't know our history!

Very informative! I'm still reading it and learning about the history of our Constitution and the positions of the framers, signers, delegates, early judges, etc. I highly recommend this book to all American citizens (and others who may be interested in our country).

Simply outstanding factual, fun, and very informative read. Should be read by all as it is the basis, albeit slowly eroding, for the highest law of the land. How it came about and was discussed and finally ratified and when by the colonies/States is a great read. Why we have a "Bill of Rights" or the first 10 amendments, why they were enumerated goes back to compromises made and clarity of wording needed to guarantee our right. The actual Constitution is a few pages. This book will give you insight into what it means and how it came about.

First, it's important to note that the PIG series seems, on its face, to be less-than-serious efforts at deep thought. The title and styling of these books may lead some to believe that they are less "academic" in nature. But that would be a grave mistake for anyone to make, especially in this case. The author of this particular book is decidedly deserving of the term "expert" in the two categories primarily addressed in this book (he holds doctorates in both history and law and is widely published) and knows the subject matter possibly better than anyone alive. In light of that, this is an important book in many regards, but specifically on the three subjects listed in my title. In regards to law, the author explains how little historical knowledge is possessed by most law school graduates, which greatly affects how they interpret the Constitution. This impacts the political process, indirectly due to the number of politicians who are law school graduates, and directly by grossly coloring the lenses of people's glasses regarding their views of what is and is not Constitutional. The cure for this is, of course, an actual look at what the Constitution meant to those who ratified it and where (and why), exactly, those views fell out of favor in a historical analysis. This is not heavy reading in that it does not require tremendous intelligence to digest, but it is heavy in terms of implications. If the author is correct -- and we have no reason to believe he is not -- then most of those in political power in our country have a view of the Constitution that is not only flawed, but almost upside down in its understanding. I'd like to suggest that people like Pelosi, Schumer, et al read this book, but I also know that I might as well as for a unicorn for my birthday as expect them to understand what the Constitution actually means. For now I will just recommend it to friends and students and hope for the best.

Wow, the more I read the more I realize I don't know lots. It makes sense that our kids don't know about their history and their parents as well seem to not know the role that they are responsible to play because the the school system failed them purposefully. The key thing to this book is that the Supreme Court has taken the States power over and over again for many years and it is so common that they are not even questioned about the gross misuse of power; the people are unaware that it is our job to do this and so their kids will inherit a US that wants them to hate it so the globalists will then control them and sneak in socialism which will not live up to its promises. It is also important to note that the lawyers are taught the constitution based upon the Supreme Court Justices who have grossly misused their power and they use historical judgements that have trampled upon our constitutional rights. They are taught to see this is a normal thing and even that it is a good thing and perhaps don't really see what is at stake or don't relish what we have as a form of government and our society and liberties that all come from what now is seen as an old funny pages in a heap of worthless papers. We can teach the kids how to enjoy being a part of something bigger than a selfish self by restoring these divine rights and this book opened my mind to how I didn't know these Justices have been greedily power grabbing and the effects that it has caused. Great book

Dr. Gutzman tells the true history and meaning of the effort to and ratification of the present Constitution. As opposed to the 8th grade version in about every book, he dares to tell that the Philadelphia Convention was of questionable legal authority, met in secret, barred its members from discussing any matter that went on, and even has forthrightness to explain how some of the Framers said one thing in the convention and other thing in public during the ratification debates. Shocking, some (Hamilton) lied. I have only heard one other scholar besides Dr. Gutzman explain that the 14th Amendment was not properly adopted, my old professor, the late Dr. Forrest MacDonald. I especially appreciated his section on the so-called "Federalist Papers" in which he explained that they had nothing to do with getting the Constitution ratified, even in New York as the voting was done by the time half came out. Next to the Bible, most traditional conservatives regard the "Federalist Papers" as sacred. Actually, they are good to have as they document Alexander Hamilton's lies and fraud. This book is for everyone from maybe a 10th grader to adults and is a must for lawyers and judges, who do not learn the Constitution in law school, they learn "constitutional law" which is the law according the the Supreme Court-bogus, in other words.

The author is so contrarian that he does not hesitate to contradict himself. He has that typical Libertarian habit of deriding the US Constitution when it's convenient and then bewailing any deviation from it when it suits his purposes. He anguishes over the fact that the Federalist Papers are ignored in Constitutional Law courses and then spends the rest of the book complaining that people insist on reading such useless bunk. Many of the Politically Incorrect Guides are great reads and informative. This book isn't one of them.

An interesting read for someone new to trying to understand the US Constitution, but the author really wants to complain about how judges and politicians "ignore" and "misinterpret" what the author claims is the correct (meaning "his") interpretation of what the Founders and Founding Generation intended. The truth is, they couldn't agree on what they wanted, they just knew the Articles of Confederation weren't up to the task of nationbuilding. The author even claims many Founders didn't want to build a nation, which is true when it comes to people like Patrick Henry. But Henry didn't carry the day in his attempt to defeat the 13 colonies' willingness to give their new Constitution a try. We are still working on implementing its concepts. Unlike the author, I don't think America will ever stop interpreting these late 19th century precepts to the needs of a changing world and country. At least, I hope not.

One of the most glaring deficiencies in our federal government today is it's complete disregard for the set of rules that should govern its behavior, limiting its power and scope: the Constitution. Today, it's unpopular to say government isn't the best solution to our country's deep problems. But Gutzman, like a man willing to state publicly that he likes the music of Van Halen with Sammy Hagar singing lead, is willing to tell the truth even when it goes against the grain. Perhaps if we'd heeded the Constitution in the first place and the Federal Reserve had never been unconstitutionally created, Alan Greenspan wouldn't have been able to set artificially low interest rates in the early 2000s, extending the life and size of a financial bubble that desperately needed deflating, regardless of the inevitable pain to financial markets. Perhaps too, quasi-government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wouldn't have existed or been forced to make home loans to unqualified borrowers. The benefits to our country of adhering to the Constitution would be real and immediate and few people have the courage and thoughtfulness to articulate that point as clearly as Gutzman does in this book. I rate the book four stars, instead of five because of my firm belief in the sanctity of freedom, civil rights and liberty. As Gutzman rightfully points out, consistent application of the Constitution doesn't automatically lead immediately to greater freedoms. He refers specifically to the specious judicial legerdemain of the Supreme Court regarding civil rights. While it has brought more freedom to some in our country, it did so by blatantly usurping powers the Constitution clearly leaves to the states or individual citizens. I think civil rights is an important enough facet of American society for Gutzman to then explain how it could have been achieved with Constitutional legitimacy. While I'm sure Gutzman addresses this point in other writings, I think it should have been quickly addressed here. It's great to read such an impartial call for the application of our Constitution as its ratifiers intended it. Gutzman points out many historic examples of both parties abusing the Constitution when it served their needs. I highly recommend this book. Adherence to our Constitution would have helped us avoid many of our nation's current problems, and excitingly, can still help us find our way back onto the right track. Better?

I found this book fascinating my first read through, but it's even more handy as a resource at my fingertips when questions arise. This would be an excellent gift for any highschooler or college student, but I think everyone could benefit from having a copy of this to read and refer back to. You'd be surprised how well it settles debates, and if you read it prior to getting into those debates, you will also have the satisfaction of being on the winning side.

Great book that every patriotic American should read! This book will reignite that flame for all patriots and those who don't know our history!

Very informative! I'm still reading it and learning about the history of our Constitution and the positions of the framers, signers, delegates, early judges, etc. I highly recommend this book to all American citizens (and others who may be interested in our country).

Simply outstanding factual, fun, and very informative read. Should be read by all as it is the basis, albeit slowly eroding, for the highest law of the land. How it came about and was discussed and finally ratified and when by the colonies/States is a great read. Why we have a "Bill of Rights" or the first 10 amendments, why they were enumerated goes back to compromises made and clarity of wording needed to guarantee our right. The actual Constitution is a few pages. This book will give you insight into what it means and how it came about.

Great!

Its always great to get additional context to the events of history

Read this book and find out what really makes America different from the rest of the world! How do you know what you stand to lose if you don't understand, or know your rights?? Easy to read, and clarifies a lot of distort chatter that passes for truth today. A must read for ALL Americans.

They were a lot quicker in sending this, than I was in writing my review. It's very interesting. Not meant as deep or complicated fare, it just hit the spot.

SEND COPY TO CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG

Kevin Gutzmans book is a MUST have! Extremely well researched and wrote material. A true value at whatever price you pay for it! It's good enough that I wish I could send a copy to each and everyone of our Politicians on Capitol Hill.

Excellent book, Mr Gutzman did a great job thoroughly explaining the Supreme Courts ridiculous behavior on replacing the constitution's original meaning with "constitutional law"! The Courts "reasoning" in cases and using the 14th amendment's "due process" as an open door to do whatever the hell they want and acting like the legislating body and also just flat out ingnoring the constitution's original meaning that was understood by the ratifiers..just made me sick!!! I stongly recommend everybody read this book and especially those interested in the true meaning of a federal constitution as understood by the ratifiers and not the 'constitutional law" that is understood by the almighty Supreme Court and American lawyers!!!

When the constitution and the bill of rights were ratified about 225 years ago, it was clear that the powers of the federal government were to be limited to those specifically itemized in the documents thus ratified. Professor Gutzman explains the step-by-step process through which that understanding has been radically transformed at the expense of the individual states, by judicial review and a sometimes rogue Congress. One example is the Fourteenth Amendment where Professor Gutzman identifies two problems. First, was its ratification method in 1868. None of the former Confederate states would be re-admitted to the Union unless they passed it. Yet President Lincoln had consistently maintained that the Civil War was a domestic rebellion. The southern states, he maintained, had never left the Union. Their membership was irrevocable and perpetual and they were, therefore, used to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment ending slavery before the Fourteenth Amendment was even in a drafting stage. Professor Gutzman provides an enlightening hypothetical comparison. Suppose Iran were to conquer the United States and require that none of the states could be represented in a re-constructed Congress until they passed a new amendment "making Muslim sharia law the law of the land." Perhaps, a reader might reason, that the various states could simply refuse to pass the amendment. In response, however, the Iranian victors could simply require that nobody who sided against them in the war could be permitted to vote in the formation of the state governments. That's essentially what Congress did with the 1867 Reconstruction Acts that also gave the vote to former slaves who were certain to vote in favor of the resultant puppet regimes. The second unanticipated consequence of the Fourteenth Amendment is that it enabled to Supreme Court to protect *corporations* even though it is clear that the amendment was designed to benefit former slaves. When the Court ruled that corporations were "persons" under the meaning of the Amendment, they destroyed the ability of the individual states to regulate corporations that did business in across state lines. For decades thereafter the great majority of all legal cases citing the Amendment were involved with the property rights of corporations--not the civil rights of blacks. Gradually, the incremental changes resulting mostly from judicial review have have put the bottom fence rail on top.

This is one of those books that should be required reading in Middle or High School. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to grasp the founding father's intentions and - for lack of a better word - games that they played to shape the the Constitution as they saw fit. And if the Constitution didn't meet their needs and wants, how they would use the Judicial System - expecially the Supreme Court - to shape the perception of what the Constitution "really means". This book will help explain that from the very beginning, people have worked to make the Constitution mean what they want, rather than accept what it was supposed to mean: Limited Federal Government and Massive States Rights.

I recommend this for, if nothing else, the depth of the history surrounding the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It could have gone deeper, but then it would have been a different book - and it goes deeper than most I've seen. As the book progresses through various attacks on the Constitution through history, the focus is almost entirely upon the Supreme Court. Not a bad target, all in all, but perhaps the title could have changed to reflect the actual focus in the writing. I'd expected a more broad-based examination of violations of the Constitution from all of the culprits. After the first half of the book, the writer loses his distance from the material, becoming more passionate about the violations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, which actually weakens his writing - he'd have been better if he'd been able to maintain the factual, dispassionate presentation of the earlier material. At the end, his personal bias is remarkably plain, and it lost this reader a bit. The P.I.G. features - factoids appearing frequently in the margins, under headings such as "A Book You're Not Supposed to Read", which recommends further reading relevant to the subject at hand, and "Legal Latinisms", which explains Latin phrases commonly used in law, are generally good - the damning quotes are too often given without context, and the half-page biographies could stand some bibliography notes, - but all in all, they're nicely used. Don't mistake my criticism here - I strongly recommend this book, and will doubtless loan it to as many of my friends as I can. There are flaws, so this could have been better - but so far, nobody's done better with this material yet - not that I've seen, anyway.

I have the Audible version of this book. I have listened to it in it's entireity now four times. I have just restarted it again for the fifth time with no end in sight. The effort and research that Dr. Gutzman put in to this work is truly amazing and I have yet to assimilate it all--hence the repetition in my listening. This book has had such an impact on me that I've also ordered the paperback version and the audio CD version of this work as well as Dr. Gutzman's other books. This work has solidified and honed my views on state sovereignty like no other work has except for the US Constitution itself. I recommend this book to every American citizen so that they can fully understand how we got to where we are today. This is a definitive work on how the federal (not national) government our forefathers built has been bastardized for the last 2+ centuries. Thanks to Dr. Gutzman for a wonderful job. I look forward to his new book on James Madison as well. UPDATE 25 July 2011: I have now finished my 9th time through the audio version in addition to the printed version. I stand by my previous review--even more. I will not be stopping my revisits anytime soon! UPDATE 20 March 2012: I have finished my 12th time through the work. Though the words are now so very familiar I am still learning with each repeat still.

Highly recommended. Arrived on time

I have used this as a resource for years in school.

Excellent, thoughtful without the left wing rewriting to meet progressive tastes and vision for the future.

Well presented must know information for every U.S. citizen. Voting without this type of knowledge understood is to be played like a fool every two years. Get it and read it. Hurry as 2016 is approaching fast...

It explains many of the issues I was having with the implementation of the Constitution. Those that wanted a fully functional national government and had not gotten their way during the convention found other means to do it. The reason the Constitution is outdated is these people used failed implementation from Europe to override the the "true" Constitution of the States. The States failed to stop the inch by inch progression away from the original meaning of the Constitution. Sad. I think the book was well done and easy to understand. You will learn with amendment was never ratified and should not legally be part of the Constitution.

very interesting slant on subject matter...

It's breathtaking how much power the federal government has assumed, in comparison with the limitations of the Constitution as written and as originally interpreted. I had read Gutzman's James Madison biography, with his contributions to the Constitution, just before reading this book. Although my impression is that Gutzman and I would not agree politically, and although he expresses personal opinions (probably in line with the "Politically Incorrect" tag), I learned a lot from this book, and I believe the scholarship is trustworthy. I recommend it.

Important information.

I recommend that everyone read The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. It clearly shows how the Supreme Court has, since the founding of our country, taken more and more power for itself that never was granted by the Constitution. It explains why law is now based on past Court rulings, instead of on the words of the Constitution itself (unless, of course, the Supreme Court conveniently chooses to ignore any past precedents in order to make a new ruling they want to impose on the country). Some of the reactions to Court rulings mentioned in the book include: "Louisiana briefly considered responding to the Court's decision in the Flag-burning Case by making it legal to beat up flag-burners. Perhaps such violence is covered by `freedom of expression.' In the end, Louisiana didn't go ahead with the idea: state legislatures often are more restrained in their behavior than the Court is." Interesting sidebars in the book include "Books You're Not Supposed to Read," which includes The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas Woods. After reading this Guide to the Constitution you will know which Supreme Court justice was a former Ku Klux Klansman, who "took the lead in writing the twentieth-century Klan's views on church-state relations into `constitutional law.'" Sidebars also contain interesting facts such as: "Supreme Logic: Fraud Is a Contract--According to [Chief Justice] Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck (1810), a fraudulent land purchase was a `contract'-and was thus subject to the protection of the Contracts Clause. `Coincidentally,' Marshall was a substantial land investor." You will also learn which Court ruling was based on "penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees [in the Bill of Rights] that help give them life and substance." This book is a great starting place for understanding how we got from the guaranteed freedoms of the Constitution to where we are today.

Good

great info, leading me to read other books.

What do you say about a book that puts on paper the thoughts and beliefs you hold as correct. Obviously the writer is an absolute genius. Now if we could fix the wrongs. An excellent look at the constitution that should be presented to all civics students.

This book takes a candid look at the Constitution from the point of view that is blatantly ignored in our public schools. In fact, this fact-based and thoroughly researched book exposes biases and agendas in today's curriculum that most people are never aware of. Every adult and student deserves to know the side of history that is not taught in schools.

While it's obvious the author's view is slanted from the right on some of the commentary and choices of Supreme Court cases that are brought up in the book, I found it to be an excellent historical refresher. I'm not quite done reading it, but it is everything it was advertised to be so far, imo. While I'm a middle of the road Democrat, I did NOT find it offensive in the least. I've actually enjoyed some of the details especially those concerning early Supreme Court cases and the comments of the founding fathers and the history. The best parts are those where you find yourself saying....I wasn't aware of this particular fact.... hmmmmmm....

If you are looking for a book which does not coddle the current political viewpoints endeared to the liberal mindset, this book is for you. It explains in great detail the reasons behind the Constitution, the viewpoints of the authors of the Constitution, and the constant power grab of the Supreme Court which continuously warps the intent of the framers in decision after decision. This is the type of book you will want to read over and over so you can easily recall the important moments in the history of the slow erosion of the Constitution. The only way to figure out how to fix the problem is to identify the problem, determine where the cracks in the system were started, and demand those cracks be filled. This book does a fine job of illustrating where our Constitution has been damaged and, with some contemplation on the reader's behalf, provides an outline on the issues wise voting citizens should demand their elected representatives address to bring these United States back to a true system of Federal Representative Democracy.

An inconvenient partial listing of the actions leading to the destruction of the Founder's honest intent to limit the national government to the role of a servant. An eye popping selection of outright violations of constitutional law and the framers intent. This book should not be read by the wide eyed innocent who thinks our government has always acted according to constitutional law. The words we live by have been perverted.

truth

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is one of the best concise introductions to the Constitution. Dr. Gutzman, who is an expert on early American politics, has condensed two semesters worth of constitutional history into a brief and lively volume. If you have ever wondered how the Supreme Court reaches its decisions, or what relationship those decisions actually bear to the Constitution as ratified by the Founders, this is the book for you. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in constitutional history and especially those who are considering law school.

I read through some of the reviews on this PIG & I only need to add my personal enjoyment with the book & the insights I received. I now have a better understanding of the politics of some of these dudes in black. I also formulated a better (though not perfect) rationale for why these pin heads in black make rulings and especially find "words" that are no where to be found in the Constitution. It is not a complete history book but to sell it short in any respect is a disservice to the author.

Even though I'm solidly in the conservative/libertarian camp, this book still rattled my foundations. Throughout the whole span of my political consciousness I've devoted little or no serious analysis to states' rights--I always lumped the topic in with the defenders of slavery and was done with it. To say this book has broadened my horizons in that respect is an understatement. I still think that arguments that the Civil War was not about slavery are unfounded (no slavery, no war), but I now realize that, the immorality of slavery excepted, from a constitutional standpoint the South might have had the better of the argument. For someone who has always revered Lincoln, Grant and Sherman, this is a pretty big deal. But the War of Southern Independence is by no means the main focus of Gutzman's chronicle of the abuses the Constitution has endured--indeed, from the first pages he gives new meaning to the word "states" in United States of America, and in each subsequent chapter he brings light to crucial issues that have been out of sight to most of us. (Remember footnote four!) Perhaps the only good thing to come out of the recent healthcare debacle is that it led me to Kevin Gutzmans's amazingly informative and important book.

Professor Gutzman writes in a clear and understandable manner and in doing so he provides a view of the Constitution many have never seen. I found myself learning (and unlearning) on every page. If you want to learn about the Constitution, do yourself a favor and read this book-and all the recommended reading (including Tom Woods' books). This work is a treasure trove of information. Highly Recommended.

Learn what the Constitution is, how is structures the Government. Learn that the Bill of Rights does not grant you your freedoms...that it keeps the Government from touching or destroying the rights that you were born with, given to you by your creator. Read and learn..then get angry about what our country has turned into.

This has been a fascinating and I opening read. A little dry at times but not too much considering the subject matter I feel it is a book that everyone should read giving you a better understanding of how our constitution is based and what our country is built on and what we no longer follow

What a treat this book is to read, even if you have to give up some cherished myths. You'll never see James Madison in the same light again, wishy-washy as he was. You'll understand the vital importance of the states as founders of the federal government and without peer in their own spheres. Dr. Gutzman interrogates the 14th Amendment and finds it did not mandate Brown v. Board of Education or anything like unto it. He also illustrates how quickly the rot set in after the Constitution's ratification--just a few years, in fact. And while I'd read criticism of John Marshall's expansionist view of the great compact before, none of it compares to Dr. Gutzman's readable and clear demolition job. This book is enlightening in just about every field of thought that concerns the Constitution and its overthrow by the various courts. There is a quibble to be made about how the book portrays Chief Justice Taney's Dred Scott decision. I cannot but see that Taney was correct about slavery, the Constitution, and the founders. That Amendments 13-15 were passed clearly points out that there was a perceived need to rectify the Constitution in regard to slavery. Perhaps Taney should have kept his mouth shut, but it looks like he spoke truth. I also can't understand why so many conservatives have a problem with privacy as a right. Granted, privacy was absurdly warped into a ground for justifying abortion, but the abuse of a right doesn't mean that right doesn't exist. Dr. Gutzman claims the right to privacy is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, but in this I think he's wrong. The 9th Amendment states that the rights mentioned in the Constitution do not exhaust the rights of the people, and surely being left alone, of not being an object the government can spy on without cause, is one of the greatest liberties we could enjoy. These flaws don't overshadow this book's enormous power to smash myths and set things right. It's a combination textbook, reference work, and just plain enjoyable reading. Though not a long book, it points the reader in the right directions both in its own right, and in areas of further study that it unfolds.

I wish more books were this quick and "easy" to read and packed as much information into it! For anyone who is either studying early american history or the constitution this is a must read!

Amazingly easy to understand and extremely educational. A must read for anyone interested in how the colonies came together but made sure they would also be separate where it counted. Strictly my opinion, but it is also a must read for the Supreme Court. Looks like they need a refresher course these days.

I have many of the Politically Incorrect Guides and this is as good as they come. Highly informative and delightful reading, you'll learn many things about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers that you NEVER learned in school. A must for all middle school, high school and college students in order that they LEARN the TRUTH.

Here is another one that everyone should read, who wants to know just how messed up the Supreme Court is! We really need to get our act together, and know just what is happening on Capitol Hill! They liked it when they could keep us in the dark; well that isn't happening anymore.

Very good book. If you interested in truth about the Constitution read this book. Understanding the true values and Ideals of our Founders is very important to continuing freedom in America.

Learned a lot, and I highly recommend. I concur with many other reviewers. Word of warning, don't listen to audio CD whilst driving, as it may cause you to go into a trance. The voice is very droning.

Very interesting and informative book on how the US Constitution has been raped by the US Supreme Court over the years. A must read for everyone!

This book was a little tough for me to get into and support. I like to think I am pretty objective but it is hard to follow some of the logic Gutzman lays out in this at times. The first third of the book was great. IT was about the constitution and the ratification and a lot of the "behind the scenes" stuff that we don't know as common knowledge. The last 2/3rds of the book were regarding the courts (supreme court mostly). I don't know maybe it was just me but it was hard to follow the issue Gutzman had at times with various issues. IT would appear that he would be against something the court was doing and then other times on something seemingly nefarious he would appear to be for it. I think, he was approaching this as a strict constitutionalist approach in the vein of the original intent of the constitution as laid out by several of the founders. And in that regard, various over steps of the court in areas it shouldn't be in (even when the issue at hand - slavery for example was bad). It would, to me, be tough to follow the moral path of how I was to understand the court did something wrong but then not have the, what should have happened then, follow-up. This portion would be left, often, omitted and left me wanting to understand how to deal with the info I was being presented. I also, wasn't as enamored with the court side of things. I was hoping it would all be around the ratification and arguments and discussions of the constitutional convention etc. This was, again, only a small portion with the larger portion being the court up to almost present and how they were/are continually overstepping their role/bounds. But, the beginning was pretty great learning about some of the "founders" and their various approaches to what our connection should look like. For the money, it was worth it for sure. But, if it was over $10 I wouldn't be as quick to pick this up over something else perhaps.

I lent this to our son, a Constitutionalist born and bred. He is enjoying reading what he already believes, that our Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written.

'The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History', coupled with 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution' are essential resources for those who are searching for exactly how the American Government has destroyed the 'American Dream' (as envisioned by the framers and ratifiers of our founding documents.) These are not theoretical books, rather, they are a recitation of the facts and actions that changed America from the Land of the Free and Hopeful, into the Home of the Dependent and Hopeless. Viewed from the perspective of natural human behavior, nothing that has happened should be surprising, either from the side of the looters, or from the side of the looted. It has all happened many times before. Too bad it had to happen again here. As someone has wisely observed, "what we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history". Jesse Townsley

Simply put - GET IT! READ IT! Then READ IT AGAIN AND AGAIN! Maybe after enough people understand what this country is supposed to be (and a corporation is NOT it, as in 'the USA Incorp. which we've become) maybe then we can elect a decent president. Until then, it appears we'll just keep electing 'horse apples'.

Should be mandatory in high school. The current curriculum ignores such simple truths and promotes an imaginary version of history.

Author and scholar Thomas Wood's review really says it all, and far better than I can. Simply put, this book is a necessary read for all of us. It traces the history of the awful power and capriciousness of the U.S. Supreme Court; it exposes our pathetic and dangerous lack of education and knowledge of the Constitution; it reminds us of the all-but-forgotten principles of "states' rights"; it correctly notes the ongoing failings of our law schools, which produce endless attorneys virtually ignorant of the Constitution's meaning and intent. I suggest you read the review by "ZXZXZX" for a few important specifics. After reading this book you will wonder how much better a country we would have today, how much more freedom we would enjoy, if our national government had chosen to adhere to the Constitution, instead of ignoring and subverting it.

This is an extremely interesting book! It is very historical and gives you the back round story of how things happened and why it happened. I think this book should be required reading in schools!

The entire PIG series is excellent, and this book was up to that high standard. The interesting facts are my favorite part. I love books that challenge conventional wisdom.

If you don't have an aversion to the truth and don't insist on living in Disneyworld and you want some facts and truth? Buy this book! Now!

No problems with downloading and working with Kindle. The book itself was very informative and easy to read. I recommend this to all my friends

How pollitical correctness EVER got a foothold is beyond me! The rewriting of history is a mere drop in the bucket to the damage it has caused, in EVERY facet of our lives!!!

So many things you were never taught in the indoctrination camps! Amazing how real the real history is!

This uniquely American document was carefully and purposefully written.

Erudite and written with clarity, this book is an invaluable guide to the many misconceptions about our Constitution and the true intentions of our founders. While the Federalist Papers are certainly an extremely important guide to original intent, they were written for the purpose of selling the Constitution to its opponents. Professor Guztman's book delves into the debate among the great thinkers of the time, their real concerns about ratification, and why they insisted that a Bill of Rights be amended to the Constitution. Dr. Gutzman, an expert on history, law, and the Constitution, has produced a succinct work that is carefully documented, compelling, and necessary for anyone interested in the study of law and constitutional history. He further demonstrates how the judicial branch of government has usurped legislative power from Congress and how our current "Constitutional" law has very little to do with our Constitution.

I originally bought this book as inspiration for my American History before 1877 college course hoping to write a paper on various parts of the constitution. As I plowed through this book, I encountered many nuggets of valuable historical and legal insights. The only problem, of course, is that very nearly none of the important facts that Gutzman uses have historical citations. Among many, MANY other instances, he never cited any source for his claim that, in 1861, the "Law of nations" only allowed countries to block other countries. Perhaps a specific treaty or a convention could have provided evidence for his claim. In another instance, Gutzman summed up a speech by Hamilton where he proposed that the constitutional congress ought to, among other things, give presidents life terms and make him appoint governors. No source for that claim that I or another critic can check. It may be the fault of the publisher, but this is pretty brazen academic laziness!

This book helps those of us who may not know enough about politics to seem intelligent. There's history explained to help with the lesson.

Very much needed reminders of the origins and intents of our National Covenant..........

Bought this as a loaner for pastor's wife (an indefatigable reader) who enjoyed the book so much asked if she could keep it! OF COURSE! Happy to educate those in the pulpit about the constitution of these states united. We need more pastors and their wives to become knowledgeable about what our form of government. This is the only way to discern IF and WHEN those elected to serve us [in it] abide their oaths and thus govern according to God, Godly principles and remain a terror to evil (not good) (romans 13). It's a must in any library. Especially those who are charged with discernment, leadership and teaching (perhaps prophecy as well!).

Books like this will help American's learn the politically incorrect truth about various subjects without all the revisionist history and skewed garbage from the left. I bought this copy for a gift to a family member in law school. HIGHLY RECOMMEND!!!!

My son is reading this fos history . It has given him a love for the constitution he never had before. Thank you so much for opening both of our eyes!

ReAD AND YOU WILL START TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS DOCUMENT IS ABOUT. Learn what it is, learn what it means and learn how it is being distorted by our present Congress. You will be shocked.

First of all, I must qualify my review by saying that I encourage everyone interested in learning exactly how the Constitution has been effectively nullified over the course of the past 200+ years to purchase this book. It is an invaluable resource to any paleoconservative, libertarian, constitutionalist, minarchist, or even open-minded anti-state liberal. That said, here is my review: Like many "paleolibertarian" books, the P.I.G. to the Constitution is exhilarating, but also frustrating. There really is no debate -- the author makes the clear case that the original meaning and intent of the Constitution is clearly evident in the writings of the founders and, more importantly, the ratifiers of the Constitution. He shows the patently outrageous decisions by the Court -- going back further than the New Deal, further than the Progressive Era or even the War to Prevent Southern Independence -- that have usurped the role of the Constitution and effectively turned the formerly sovereign states of America into an electoral/judicial dictatorship. This is fairly "politically incorrect" even to "conservatives" -- who are among the most government-worshiping, nationalist, "democracy"-loving statists in America today. In fact, the author really pushes the envelope by casting the sacred cows of Lincoln and (gasp!) Washington in a bad light (correctly, I might add). So why do I give this book only three stars? Because the author is either intellectually dishonest or, as I suspect, a shill for his pro-fascist publisher. While he correctly strikes down "politically correct" decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, the non-ratification and misapplication of the 14th amendment, and the inventions of "penumbras" which would only apply to the federal government (not the states!) if they existed in the first place, he is completely silent on the wholly invented "presidential war powers," unconstitutional aggregation of power into the executive branch, and more recent abominations like the Patriot Act. If a Republican did it post-Civil War, it didn't happen, according to the author, or if it did, it was constitutional. This selective application of the law is no different from what he (correctly) accuses the Supreme Court of doing. Furthermore, the title of this book is misleading. It deals little with the Constitution itself, and instead, is about "constitutional law" -- which the author himself admits and laments has little or nothing to do with the Constitution. This actually made the book more worthwhile for me, but the nonstop judge and lawyer bashing would have been well complemented with a little more executive-branch bashing sprinkled on top, including the truth about Republican administrations which, at least since the New Deal, have done far more to destroy liberty than their (thankfully ineffective) Democratic counterparts.

I bought the audio version of this, and I actually paused in my work routine to think about some of what is written in thise book. I have actually thought about all the information here. At least it's now concrete with evidence to back up the information and the topics included. This book challenges us to think about today and what is going on and if we are living up the measures of the constitution, (which we are not even close, read the constitution, don't be lazy, it's only a few pages), gives us some background on our history as a nation, and also has evidence to back it up. However, the saddest part is that most people do not read this basic governing document, and the bill of rights. Nor does anyone ask questions, is why I get into arguments with idiots. I must say that it has been interesting asking current Republican candidates (Democrats/liberals don't read the constitution, some believe it's outdated and does not apply to todays world, had those debates/discussions) and most of them can't quote anything from the constitution, yet they say they enforce it. Today most politicians are luke warm watered down wimps. Re: Nullification, 10th Amendment, Republic vs. democracy, Article 1 Section 8 the powers of Congress... stumped these politicians, or better yet, the state governors actually fear the federal government. However... they liked the way I thought... Great book!

Must read!

This book should be required reading in every middle-school and high-school in the United States. Teachers should be able to demonstrate proficiency before being certified to teach social studies/government subjects. That would be an excellent NEA project.

A true gem.

Pretty good read. I probably will get a few other books in the series.

good educational reference book, use it frequently. answers all questions about our Constitution.

With Government leaders trashing our Constitution, this should be on the "must read" list for all our Congress. The Judiciary was intended to be the weakest leg of Government -- not where it is today. Recommend this for any citizen.

How can we call ourselves patriotic constitutionalists if we're ignorant of what it says and why the Framers adopted it?

Hands down the best guide to understanding our Constitution as it was designed, and how we got off the rails along the way. It's written in an interesting and informative way, not your typical boring history book. If our Constitution is important to you, and you want to understand it as it was intended, this book is a must read for you.

Good reading

I found the book extremely hard to read. It is full of facts, and interesting insights into the constitution from the early years of the country through modern interpretation. However, it is very poorly edited and difficult to follow. My impression is that Dr. Gutzmans' editor had no grasp of legal concepts and just looked for spelling errors. Legal scholars may be able to gloss over the dramatic writing errors with their personal subject knowledge, but the average reader will not. Most will find themselves rereading sentences with double meanings and syntax problems so often that it becomes work to continue reading. This is not a casual read, by any stretch. If you're not well versed in constitutional history, this may not be for you.

Nice book

If you want to know the truth, here you go

It is outstanding. It full facts that have been left out, never taught, and purposely omitted in the history text by the socialist owned publishers at the request of carter (1975), Clinton (1994), and Obama Adminstrations. Hardly taught in lefty colleges and universities.Job well done.

Do you really know your history? Is it finally time to understand the Constitution? I highly recommend this as balance to other history books.

This b provides an excellant education on what the Constitution really should be, & isn't under this so-called constitutional scholar.

Husband loved this book.

This is the most depressing book I have read in a very long time. It is sad how far we have come from a constitutional republic. The only thing the author left out is that supreme court nominees must be approved by the senate, and the senate will not approve anyone who intends to limit the power of the senate.

Great book. Wonderful history lesson. Everyone should read it.

You need to send a free copy all judges and congress, sentent, and rep

Regardless of your political persuasion this is a must read. Everything they didn't teach you in school but should have. Thomas Jefferson would be cheering.

Excellent summary on how the high courts views changed over time to where are today

My boyfriend and I are reading this book together after attending a Tea Party meeting on the history of Constitutional interpretation, where this book was on a recommended reading list. My boyfriend is more conservative than I am on the Supreme Court's rulings, but we both felt largely ignorant about the Constitution's "original intent" or its history, and this looked like a good primer. Two points we both agree on: 1) The book presents an interesting history of the Revolutionary period -- both the issues leading to our declaring of independence and the many variations of thought concerning the kind of government the founders wanted to form after independence. 2) But the author, while well-versed in Constitutional history, is not a skilled writer. We both found the book very confusing and difficult to read. Granted, he is describing an era every bit as turbulent and polarized as today's political climate, but rather than sorting out the ideas, Gutzman seems to be throwing up random thoughts without clear transitions to guide the reader. To make matters worse, many statesmen apparently changed their positions as events moved along, but the author doesn't highlight these changes -- rather he just seems to be making incongruous, contradictory statements. (So what did Hamilton actually believe? we found ourselves asking.) Another source of confusion in the narrative concerns the book's central conflict between those founders who wanted a federal system of government, one that loosely connects the sovereign states, and those who wanted a national system of government, in which the national (central) government is sovereign over the states. The federalist system and the nationalist system,,,,,,but wait a minute. The political party that called itself Federalists were the people who actually wanted a strong central government (the nationalists). And the people who wanted a weaker central government (federalist system) were called Anti-Federalists! Gutzman doesn't point out the contradiction of terms (or misnomers) until chpt. 3, leaving the reader to think the confusion is in his or her own brain. Those were the points we agreed on, but I personally have another, more serious, complaint about the book. I found the author's slanted view to be more than a tad overbearing. I expected the book to represent a conservative view of the Constitution, or at least of how the Constitution should be applied. But I did not expect a historian to use derision when describing the viewpoint of founders who would today be called "liberals." For, truth be told, Gutzman's own retelling of the events makes it clear that the "founding fathers" were not all of one mind. The same polarization we see today about how much power the central government (and the Supreme Court) should have, was in play back in the 18th century. In fact, if I understand it correctly, the final version of the Constitution that was ratified was a compromise and was deliberately left somewhat vague in language so that it could be interpreted later as the times warranted. Gutzman holds that the Constitution should only be interpreted according to the original intent of the founders......but not just any founders -- only those who preferred the original Articles of Confederation that the Constitution replaced. In other words, only those who wanted the central government to be federal, not national -- weaker than the states, not stronger. It's a valid viewpoint, but not the only viewpoint being pushed by the "founders." I fear that I have shown my own prejudices as well as my lack of knowledge about Constitutional history. Let me just say that the book has value both for the history it presents (though confusingly) and for the very controversies it reveals in the founding fathers' thinking. That's why I gave it three stars. But I would have liked more clarity in the writing and a more objective view of the various arguments and viewpoints that were in play during the creation of the Constitution. Clearly that was never the author's goal.

This book is a very easy reading book. It provides information that we were not taught in grade school, high school and college in a format that is easy to understand.

Fantastic book. Very informative and inspiring. Makes you made at what is happening to our country now.

Like all of the Politically Incorrect books I have bought, it is well written and informative. These books should be used in every school instead of the "secular driven" history books our kids have to read. It is time we taught our kids the truth.

This book gives a good overview of not only what was in the Founders minds when they wrote the Constitution, but also how that vision has been twisted and warped through the generations by a Federal judiciary that sees itself as the equivalent of "Philosopher Kings," handing down edicts from on high to the democratic (small "d") rabble who dare presume to pass laws governing themselves that those robed, self-appointed legal monarchs don't like. Five stars - highly recommended.

I liked this book, but I didn't enjoy the writer's style as much as I thought I would.

This was a birthday gift . which was most welcomed

Never received it !! Still waiting ???

good but there is better best for people who know nothing

This book is full of wonderful facts which I love. It is also so one sided and talks about following the constitution so strictly that they don't even give wiggle room for people in the past who did stray from the constitution but for morally right or simply good for our country things like Thomas Jefferson making the Louisiana Purchase, or the Civil War. While the Louisiana purchase wasn't discussed in the book, it was the general impression that the book gave that all things straying from our constitution were bad.

The book would have had more impact and credibility if the author had stated facts without his bias so blantantly obvious. There are some valid points and good information in the book to consider, but many statements are so cynical and prejudiced that it takes away from the book. It was worth the money and time I spent reading it, but I shudder to think what the United States would be if this author was in control.

I generally enjoyed this book for showing a much different view of the Constitution than is giving by traditional history books. However, I felt like the author had a real ax to grind with anyone who modified the constitution beyond what the founding father's had written. Times change, get over it.

I enjoyed the book for filling me in on facts I Was not aware of.Was easy to back and forth

Incredible book! Gutzman explains the things your public school government class wants to overlook. He hits on all the major constitutional history points. If you also want a book that goes more in depth on the biggest unconstitutional transgressions by the national government in the 20th century, read his other book co-written with Thomas E. Woods, Jr. "Who Killed the Constitution?".

This is a must for anyone interested in the events surrounding the founding of our country and how we've come to the state of government today. If you want to understand the originalist position, this book is for you. Kevin gives added insight to George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Jefferson's thoughts about republican government as well as making a solid case for the Judiciary of our country destroying that very government. These contrasts are so striking that I cannot see how our government can ever be "reformed" on a course back to the founders' intent. Sadly, In that sense, any true patriot reading this book will have their bubble resoundingly burst. At the end of this book I found myself saddened by the realization that the founders' vision has been so thoroughly trampled that we can no longer recognize it as a people.

The author picks sides, which I find somewhat off-putting. For example he states that the Federalists violated the original intent of "the Founders." As if George Washington, James Madison (who later became a Republican), John Jay, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and numerous other Federalists whose names most people would recognize weren't among "the Founders." The father of the Republicans (who are now the Democrats), Thomas Jefferson, wasn't even in the country when the constitution was written so it's hard to imagine his role superseding, in qualification of being a "founder," that of Washington and the others. The Author seems to be hung up on the fact that the constitutional convention of 1787 wasn't chartered to come up with a constitution and so for some reason that invalidates the fact that they did and it was ultimately ratified by the states. Once ratified, any arguments about the validity of its provenance, while of historical interest, is moot. Rather than reporting history, the author makes moral judgments and ascribes "good" and "bad" to events and outcomes that are highly debatable. Is it bad that Madison argued for the creation of a Second National Bank after he opposed the creation of the First? Is it bad that the U.S. has a strong federal government today rather than a Balkanized collection of loosely affiliated, constantly bickering independent state governments? We might be using the word "Americanized" rather than Balkanized if history had worked out the way the author would have liked. Or maybe things would be better. We can't know, which is why assigning moral values to these things is wrong. He titles one section "Marshall Gets One Right" referring to SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall, implying that in most cases he was "wrong." Why was he wrong? Mainly because he disagreed with Jefferson on interpretation of the Constitution, which as I noted before, was written and ratified while Jefferson was not even in the country and violated many of the principles Jefferson promoted. How can one decide that Jefferson is "right" and Marshall is "wrong?" He makes arguments that Roger Taney, author of the infamous Dred Scott decision, was a better Chief Justice than Marshall because he was more biased toward the Jeffersonian ideal and promoted states' rights more than Marshall, as if that's the primary metric of goodness. At one point he writes that the Confederacy had "higher regard for the Constitution" than Lincoln, while he fails to mention that nearly all of the things he complained about Lincoln doing, like conscription and suspension of Habeas Corpus, were also done by Jefferson Davis. In spite of these problems, there is a lot of fascinating history here that you might not get elsewhere. I don't mind it when the author said "the Constitution says this but the Supreme court said that" or "Jefferson said this, but Marshall did the opposite." Those are informative statements and it's really entertaining to see how hypocritical even the people we view as great men often twisted their values beyond recognition to get the things they thought were important. And in fact, the real history is *how* they were able to impose their will on the country by whatever means they had at their disposal. What I object to is the judgmental moralization and the shading of the facts to fit the narrative that the author wants the reader to come away with. He's doing the very thing he accuses the various antagonists in his book of. I already know a lot about many of the time periods he covers or I might not have known about the parts he omits to make his point. This should not be your only source of history about these important eras in our country's past. You should also check out books by Joseph Ellis and Shelby Foote, among others.

This book was awesome. I've never learned so much about US History, The Constitution, and the Supreme Court (among other related items) than from this book. It also makes our political climate today make a lot more sense. Proponents of Big Government have been walking on and eroding the Constitution since the decade after it was written. Also, some of supposed "heroes" and "geniuses" of history weren't exactly as they are hailed today. It's very interesting to see that they were all human and some had flaws you wouldn't expect, while others were stalwart in their words and actions.

Chapter 1. What made the Constitution: Revolution and Confederation. Explains the genesis of Britain's debt, which included the `French and Indian War' and British attempts to get colonists to help pay that debt; and colonist opposition due toviews of selfgovernment. Chapter 2. Federalism vs. Nationalism. Explains the first principle of American government: that sovereignty lay in the States. Great explanation of the `monarchist', nationalist' and the prevailing tightly-constricted view of constitutional interpretation. Chapter 3. Selling the Constitution. Discusses the Bill of Rights and the struggle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists (a.k.a. Republicans). Republicans, led by George Mason, insisted on a `Bill of Rights.' In Federalist No. 28 Hamilton emphasizes State sovereignty and that "state governments will in all possible contingencies afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority." Similarly Federalist No. 31 writes that "State governments by their original constitutions are invested with complete sovereignty." Chapter 4. Judges: Power Hungry from the Beginning. Starts with the Judiciary Act of 1789 that created the federal court system and the importance of the Tenth Amendment, which restricts the power of the federal government. "Republicans saw themselves as defenders of the Constitution against Federalist usurpers." Detailed explanation of opposition to the "Sedition Act" and Federalist loss of control in Congress. Chapter 5. The Imperial Judiciary: It started with Marshall. Excellent discussion of the flawed reasoning of Justice John Marshall in several court cases to include the nationalist decision in McCulloch v Maryland (1819). Explains that the Philadelphia Convention "opted for a federal government with limited powers instead of a national government with unlimited powers" ... which the author explains was undone by the Marshall Court. Chapter 6. Undoing Marshall - And Undoing the Union. Explains differences between the Marshall Court and the Taney Court to include the `Dred Scott v Sanford' decision that led to the War for Southern Independence of 1861-65 (a.k.a.Civil War). Chapter 7. The War for Southern Independence. "The seceding states justified their actions chiefly on the basis that the northern states were unwilling to comply with the Constitution." Author does critical analysis of Lincoln and that the 14th Amendment was never ratified! Chapter 8. The Pro-Segregation Supreme Court. Two of the interesting cases include Hall v DeCuir (1877) wherein the Court decided that Louisiana could not bar segregation. In the Income Tax Case of 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had no authority to impose an income tax! Chapter 9. The Court v FDR. America's constitutional traditions impeded the socialist doctrines of the 1930s ... until FDR threatened the Supreme Court. Author provides an overview of FDR's socialist goals in the New Deal and his opposition to the 10th Amendment. Chapter10. The Grand Wizard's Imperial Court. Discusses overturned decisions to include West Coast Hotel Co v Parish (, NLRB v Jones (1937); and Halvering v Davis (1937) where the Court stated that Congress "could itself determine what taxes promoted the general welfare," thusly ignoring the 10th Amendment and resulting in a judicial coup d'etat. Also discusses FDR appointment of an Alabama Democrat Senator Hugo Black to the Supreme Court despite his involvement with the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Chapter 11. The Court on Pornography, Crime and Race. Author discussed numerous court decisions to include pornography, cruel & unusual punishment, the Miranda Rights, Brown v Board of Education, as well as civil rights legislation of the 1960s. . Chapter 12. The Court's Brave New World, Author describes federal adventures in affirmative action, sex discrimination, privacy, and homosexuality. In summary, the author does a tremendous job of outlining how the Supreme Court has often violated, not supported, the Constitution and intent of the Founding Fathers. I took numerous law courses at the Bachelors, Masters, and Doctorate levels, but most instruction was very dry. In contrast, this author educates the reader in an entertaining manner. 5 Stars!

I've read dozens of books on this subject, so I was happily surprised that I was able to learn much new information that I hadn't come across before. For that reason I was going to give the book 5 stars. This book covers Supreme Court cases from the founding of the country to the present day to show how the court has been leading us further and further away from the constitution. Sometimes, however I lost the thread the author was trying to convey and wasn't sure of where he was coming from. These moments were perplexing and fortunately not too numerous. I also found myself disagreeing intensely with some of the authors take on what the founders intended. He first lost me when he said the state should have trumped the rights of the Cherokee in the decision that led to their removal to Oklahoma. By this logic any state can do as much evil as it wants to any group of people and the federal government and supreme court should just ignore it (Hmmm). The natural rights of the Cherokee should trump the state, federal, and judicial(in my opinion). He lost me other places as well. For instance, he seemed to say that it should be up to the state to resolve an issue such as what we can read in the privacy of our homes. This view is a far cry from the view of all of my constitutionalist friends. Yes the revolution was about decentralization, but it was also about protecting our natural rights from the government. If Oregon decides to forcibly euthanize all citizens over the age of 75 should the feds sit back and say it is up to Oregon to resolve this. How about if Nebraska says science fiction literature is illegal. What if Georgia decides to execute all Deists. These examples all violate the natural rights of life, liberty, or property. Perhaps it comes down to this question. May the states violate the federal constituion at will? If the author says yes, then I don't beileve he's politically incorrect, he's just plain incorrect. Just as the left wing socialists/progressives are destroying our Constitution and individual liberty, I believe Kevin Gutzman would be a danger to my individual freedom as well if he were say a supreme court justice. To sum up, it was very educational, slightly unclear at times(maybe only for me), and for many it will be controversial. Enjoy.

Great read explaining the complicated nature of the US today and how from the very start the people who wished a strongly centralized government erroded the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution through the courts, legislation, and corruption. Will leave you wanting to learn more avbout the men involved and the whys and hows of these situations. If you want to understand the mess we are in today and why the Constitution matters or doesn't, you need to read this book. Its a shame it isn't mandatory for all schools and our politicians and other classes of criminals and perverts.

This book is unique in many respects - it is a serious, scholarly study on the history of the Constitution, its ratification, the discussions leading to the creation of the document, and a very concise history of its debasement by the Judicial branch of the government, the purported keepers of the integrity of its intentions and the rights it guaranteed for the States and the People. It is also highly readable, concise and fun. There is no other book like it out there, I believe, that has all these qualities. As an expert in the history of the law and the Constitution, Dr. Kevin Gutzman chisels away at long regarded myths and icons of American history, taking apart the decisions made by important and influential individuals that manned the Supreme Court of the United States. It explains how these decisions totally remade the intentions behind the Constitution and its bridle on government power. He demonstrates the lack of scruples behind many landmark decisions that relied on interpretations of a certain article or amendment of the Constitution that were not warranted. The most troubling fact about many of these decisions is the way the Supreme Court totally misconstrues the LANGUAGE contained in the document, as if they were reading a totally different document. The author does not limit his scope on judicial decisions, he also tackles important historical events that established Constitutional paradigm shifts that changed the way the judicial branch justified their decisions, now armed with the newly minted 14th Amendment. He first explains why the 14th Amendment was not ratified according to statute, clearly showing Congress totally misconstruing the status of the Southern states as actual "States" of the Union and thus having no legal say on the ratification of this amendment, totally disregarding the 4 years of war fought for the very purpose of preserving the Union. He shows how many modern and highly regarded "civil rights" decisions were made based on a liberal interpretation of this amendment, disregarding the actual intent of the amendment or even its language. For those who think or believe the Constitution has just been recently (like 50 or 100 years since) attacked, Gutzman shows that the defiance it has suffered from its purported "defenders" started almost from the very beginning, with federal judges wielding their reinterpretation power almost before the ink had dried(!) This book gave me (a non-American) a greatly appreciated insight on the American Constitution, on its origins and on the reasoning of the framers. Where I come from, the "Constitution" is just a collection of rules for government AND the People alike (!), with a list of "obligations" enumerated for the citizenry, as if the People were mere tenants of their own country. I am talking about Mexico, America's neighbor to the south. I totally recommend this book for anyone interested in the history of judicial decisions, or the history of the Constitution and its ratification. Such a book is not available anywhere, nor in such an accessible and readable format. It is no mere fluff piece - this book is to be earmarked, with excellent references and foot notes.

Gutzman is a great scholar and knows his early US history and Constitution history. This works is a good start for those who wish to look at those areas of history from a revisionist POV. What other reviewers seem to try and claim is that these are just Republican hopes and talking points. It would be important to understand that Gutzman is not a Republican and his arguments from history should be divorced from progressive wishes (those who want a Constitution that evolves with the times, argues that Jesus would be a progressive, that good and services are rights). Gutzman would most likely argue that if progressives want their philosophy carried out, the Constitution as it was originally intended would allow that as long as you follow the prescribed and proper means of change. There are three main areas the book follows. One is the time leading up to the Revolutionary War and the political make up that would bring about the Constitution. The second is what the Constitution was done and what the federal government has done to bastardize what it means and how it's applied. Finally, how the Supreme Court and federal courts are viewed as infallible because they are supreme. Gutzman does a decent job in compacting so much information into the book. However, this book seems structured differently than others in the PIG series. The flow seems to be a primer into revisionist Constitutional history but oddly broken up only somewhat in the PIG style. It sometimes makes for a jarring read and may not be as well liked as others in the series. Overall, the book has a lot of good discussion points that would be an interesting topic to see lectured on or debated. Final Grade - B+

I could not recommend this book highly enough!! I've been studying this kind of stuff for years and I would definitely say that one can really get a wealth of knowledge out of this easy two hundred page read. If most US citizens read a book of this quality at least once during their k-12 Government indoctrination programs then we'd have way more people not drinking the cool aid, and heaps more waking up and searching out the truth on a lot of these issues!!!! JCM

When I studied constitutional law in law school, we studied what the Supreme Court said about the Constitution. I recall that our constitutional law text began its discussion of the First Amendment using an excerpt from Justice Hugo Black's opinion in the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education. What is vitally important in the study of any "text" - the historical background - was missing from my law school education. Kevin Gutzman (an historian and attorney) provides the needed background in this outstanding book. As Gutzman shows in detail, while the Constitution did increase the power of the federal government as the expense of the states, the states still remained sovereign. In fact three states (Maryland, Virginia and Rhode Island) ratified the Constitution with the proviso that they were reserving the right to withdraw from the union if they saw fit. The Southern states did have the right to secede. The Constitution is (or at least was) a states' rights document. Two things changed this. First, Justice John Marshall interpreted the Constitution in a way beneficial to Supreme Court and federal power. Second, the Supreme Court gradually held that the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporated" the provisions of the Bill of Rights, making them binding on the states. Prof. Gutzman's attack on these two pillars of Court supremacy is quite persuasive. In the Constitutional scheme as understood by Prof. Gutzman, the states retain almost complete power to regulate the economy, personal morality, and religion. This leads to some (by today's standards) unusual conclusions. While Prof. Gutzman rejects the "right to privacy" underlying such decisions Roe v. Wade, he also believes that the Supreme Court's decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (which struck down an Oregon law requiring nearly all children to attend public schools) an impermissible extension of judicial power over a purely state matter. This is a consistent state's rights view not held by any "conservatives" on the Supreme Court. This is a vital work, which should be required reading for all law students and all Americans. I also recommend WHO KILLED THE CONSTITUTION? by Prof. Gutzman and Prof. Thomas Woods.

Gutzman lays into both conservative and liberal justices and their decisions (the three chiefs he trashes are Marshall, Warren and Burger), but saves his most snarky and snide asides and language for liberal decisions. Well, be that as it may, it is a a work worth reading and taking seriously by both liberals and conservatives interested in law and the Constitution. As someone who taught courses on the philosophy of the Constitution and philosophical issues about the interpretations, I found the book a good read. My only question to Gutzman, clearly an original intenter, is if the rules of evidence preclude one from testifying to "the content of another's mind" as something they cannot know, how is it he and the other orignalists can offer their interpretation of what the founders were thinking, meant by, and didn't write into the Constitution? By the rules of evidence his interpretation of the founder's intent would be inadmissible in a court of law -- or maybe this another misapplication of the founder's intent (to exclude such testimony)? Kind of a self-negating argument. Nonetheless, the issues and problems he has with Supreme Court rulings from day one (almost) are valid points of contention and debate. Stimulating and well written; stretch your minds liberals and conservatives.

Dr. Gutzman's monograph on the Constitution is a refreshing look into the origins of our Constitution and the ways that it has been distorted over the past two centuries of our nation's existence. I have always thought that when the Gold Clause cases were decided in the 1930s and when Justice McReynolds said that the Constitution was gone that that was the time when our judicial system started its slide into the legal morass that we face today. Not so according to Dr. Gutzman. At the beginning of this 229-page book, he states that the misinterpetation of our Constitution went way back to men lke John Jay and John Marshall who through his decisions in Marbury and McCollough started the rise of judicial misinterpetation that has destroyed the meaning of certain Bill of Rights provisions like the 10th Amendment. Despite being a book that leans towards the conservatives, the book also puts the "liberty of contract" justices into the doghouse as the author explains that the states had broad power to enact legislation such as minimum wages, working conditions and the like. He also goes after the anti-free speech crowd that exhibited itself in Schenck v. United States. In my opinion, he rightly goes after the justices who upheld the military draft positions through the use of citing foreign law that was so instrumental in the recent Roper v. Simmons decision. The book also has little piglet illustrations that suggest reading books that expand on the topics covered in this tome. The book is one that would make both liberals and conservatives uncomfortable to a certain extent and that might be a good thing in order to stop the rise of our imperial government. Five stars for this book.

Mr. Gutzman does a great job of spelling out in detail, but in layman's terms, how our Constitution has been abused almost from the beginning. He also offers useful background on some of the behind-the-scenes negotiations that helped to get it ratified (and the arguments that came back to the fore when the southern states faced the decision of secession 80 years later) and some enlightening insight into the arguments and machinations of various Founding Fathers. He gives far more in-depth, Constitutionally relevant explanations of all of the landmark cases that we had to memorize in our high school history classes (Marbury v. Madison, McCullough v. Maryland, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc.) and makes them easy to understand while he's doing so. I used this as a study reference for a recent final exam in a college class and got an "A".

Professor Gutzman's final product here is an amazing work distilled from a huge amount of historical material. I arrived at my understanding of the US Constitution some time after first taking conventional "Constitutional Law" in law school. After that course, where where case law summaries were virtually just spat out, I pursued the study of the subject under a professor known to be "extremely rigorous." (I was warned by the registrar at one point when I went to register.) Unconcerned, I jumped into what would be the first of several courses where I would be given huge amounts of historical material along with case law and told to "learn to wrestle" with the issues. A year and a half later, I emerged with a Constitutional view formed by reading history, reading the text of the Constitution, reading early case law, and then spending hours trying to fit the pieces together and learn the stances taken by various sides. I wished that I could share that experience with everyone, but alas, modern "Constitutional Law" classes will not get you there. To my shock and pleasant surprise, this book is an excellent product of extensive historical digging as well as reading of case law. Gutzman is brave, but justified in his criticism of Justice Marshall, and hits most of the main points where "Constitutional Law scholarship" has forked away from actually studying the Constitution. The topics are covered in summary, which is good to remember when you're reading it; I'm sure the author could expand individual topics to fill volumes. Use this as a launching pad to dig into some of these issues. You'll be surprised what you'll find. Bravo to Gutzman; fine work. I wish every law student would read this book.

I liked most of this book, though not all. Frankly, a lot of it is informative and very to the point. It encompasses a lot of the paradigmatic cases found in constitutional law classes. However, the pique for me is the 10th amendment and latter liberties like pornography, and other "morally" questionable actions (e.g. homosexuality) and the author's subsequent implied moral dispositions to them. I know I know, I shouldn't read into the author's psychology but it seems to me that just because homosexuality or internet pornography isn't enumerated in the constitution does not necessitate its exclusion from "the people." The book is mostly predisposed to defending states' rights. And that is good vis-a-vis an over looming federal judiciary. But there are some shortcomings to states' rights and state governments that ought to be supplanted by individual rights "delegated...to the people" as evidenced in the 10th amendment. But for the most part Gutzman covers the historical complexities behind the Constitution and dispels a lot of myths. It's worth the read.

Easy to read, factual, and VERY reliable in every way. Blunt honesty on a very simple topic if people would only pay attention and not over interpret every word to suit thier agendas. Law is not regulation, it is black and white without change and fashion does not alter it. ONLY th ammendment process can do that.

In the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, Dr. Gutzman lays out the historic understanding by the 13 states as to what sort of compact they were entering into. He then chronicles the subversion of this understanding commencing with John Marshall and the original Supreme Court. For those who are frequently amazed by Supreme Court decisions which seem to plainly ignore the intent and plain language of the Constitution a reading of this book will explain both the genesis of such rulings and the degree to which the Supreme Court of the United States has taken upon itself to expand both its powers and destroy the document we are supposed to be living by. Bye the bye there are no organic restrictions in the original constitution which would prohibit a state or states from seceding from that compact. As Dr Gutzman points out the original states representatives to the Constitutional Convention were both assured of the limitations of the new federal government and the place of the states as sovereign entities. Inherent in that association is the option to withdraw from it.

Another great book in the Politically Incorrect Guide series. As usual, there is a conservative lean to the writing, but, the facts are sound. Made me want to do further research on the subject, which is always good. I'm a history buff, so, I really enjoyed this book and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents.

This book chronicles a history of unlawfulness in federal government, a refusal by the creation to abide its creating charter. It isessenrial reading for anyone who would be enlightened to the truth of a government gone completely off the reservation.

There's not a lot about the Constitution, per se, in "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution." Most everyone knows the structural stuff -- three branches, elections in November, blah blah -- and the rest ... well, the rest hardly matters anymore. Thomas Woods has already produced an excellent "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History," but "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" necessarily includes a good deal of history to explain why we've reached that point. The fundamental point of Kevin Gutzman's outstanding book is that "constitutional law" as understood and taught in the US has little if anything to do with the document adopted on September 17, 1787, and ratified by the several states over the next three years. Instead, "constitutional law" is the body of decisions and "interpretations" issued by the Supreme Court and lower courts. It's this idea of "law," and the impact it has had on the republic the founders created, that is the real object of Gutzman's study. The resulting book is spirited, opinionated, and remarkably informative. Out of more than two centuries of jurisprudence, the author has isolated some important themes and trends. Long after the Federalist Party was dead and buried, John Marshall and his intellectual heirs have succeeded in achieving the arch-Federalist goal, Gutzman argues, of turning a confederation of sovereign states into a centralized nation, and replacing "the authority of elected state governments with the authority of a few lawyers, appointed by a president to positions of lifetime tenure without any check on their power" (p. 86). Along the way, he introduces us to some key personalities and calls out some important suggested reading. Most importantly, he gives us chapter-and-verse examples of how courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have twisted, distorted, "interpreted," or ignored the clear language of the Constitution to gild judges' own opinions with the luster of "constitutional law." By making these arguments and charting these trends, Gutzman is taking on generations of America's legal establishment, as well as the received wisdom of most citizens that the word of the federal Supreme Court is final and that's just the way it's supposed to be. A reader who takes Gutzman's work seriously (and she should), may well end up both outraged and convinced that achieving any fundamental change would be an exceptionally Sisyphean task. Certainly it should make her sympathetic to the great American abolitionist and anarchist philosopher Lysander Spooner, who wrote way back in 1870 that "whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." Today is Constitution Day. Take a moment to remember what was meant to be, and what could have been.

Breathtaking! Irrefutable! Erudite! The _Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution_ can help remove the shackles of constitution misinterpretation and error from the thoughtful reader! In a mere 221 pages of entertaining and perceptive text, Dr. Gutzman encourages a major reaffirmation of the American constitutional and political tradition. In other words, if you are a student of law, American politics, political theory, or American history, or a concerned citizen, you can overcome the "myth of [constitutional] incomprehensibility" promoted by professors and pundits alike. The problems that result from studying the Constitution by the "case method" are also exposed. As a gifted historian and lawyer, Gutzman allows the reader to uncover the genuine and potentially-viable core of the American constitutional tradition: diffused authority. He traces the core tradition from the Colonial Era, to the Declaration of Independence, to the Articles of Confederation, to the Constitutional Convention and equally vital Ratification Period, and onward, while uncovering the litany of errors and false hagiography of previous scholarship (his treatment of James Madison and John Marshall alone are worth the price of the book!). Most importantly, this book provides a significant critique of just how far we have departed from the American constitutional tradition. Utilizing as many Supreme Court decisions as one would fine in a standard law textbook, but presenting these decisions in a more historically accurate and exceeding readable format, you cannot afford to ignore this book! H. Lee Cheek, Jr., Ph.D. [...]

This book starts out well, serving as it is presumably intended, as iconoclastic in nature. There are lots of cases, the facts pertaining to them, their resolution, and the precedent as set in many instances. While it is true that the preponderance of what is taught under the guise of American History is in fact myth, and the author is indeed quite correct in pointing out and shattering those myths,the overall tone of the book, by the time one reaches the final chapters, devolves from one of myth-busting to basic cynicism. It begins to sound as if criticism is being effected for little more than its own sake, until one at last sees through it: the author is advancing what appears to be his own religious agenda. He referred to creationism--the purely religious "explanation" for creation---as science. It is anything but. Indeed, no less than 72 Nobel-prize winning scientists and 17 state science academies filed amicus briefs pointing out that creationism is religion, pure and simple, and no science whatever is to be found in it. The author disdains this, and all other decisions maintaining the separation of church and state. All in all, the book is worth a read, but bear in mind that it isn't so much an education regarding the constitution you'll take from it, but a firm lesson regarding the author's right-wing, anti-democratic stance. If that is appealing to you (and it is--very--to many) then by all means, this book's for you. If, however, you are looking for an objective and enlightening view regarding the constitution, you may be a bit disappointed. The book doesn't sound so much "politically incorrect" as it does simply angry. While it is true that there is a lot anymore in our country to be angry about, I'm not certain that cynicism and the pushing of religious agenda is the answer. I tend to favour the framers' contention that religion can be freely practised only in a country in which no religion is espoused over any other by its government. While overall I do recommend the book, I should have preferred a bit less cynicism and a bit more respect for the understanding of the framers in pointing out that there is a reason, and a good one, for keeping government out of religion, even if that means keeping prayer out of schools. Besides, there's a good counterbalance already in place: kids don't pray in school, and churches don't teach algebra. And that seems to be working just fine. Upon reaching the final three chapters, the book has degenerated to a full rant. The author decries virtually every decision made by the Supreme Court, including those mandating desegragation and expanding freedoms. It becomes apparent that his obvious fundamentalist views acquire full reign and shape his every sentence; he allows full freedom of his personal prejudices and beliefs to seize control. This right he reserves to himself; however, let a Justice express his or her human individuality and views, and he's down their throats. The book should have stayed as it started---an informative insight into some of the lesser known realities associated with the constitution. Unfortunately, the beginning seems instead to serve as means to allow the author to slide into a pointless tirade, a rant, furiously denouncing the court for virtually everything it ever did, stopping just short of name calling. Here, the book assumes rather a childish nature and ceases being informative; indeed, no platform for individual preference and religious fanaticism has ever been, nor shall ever be, informative. Political correctness is one thing. Ranting and raving, however, quite another.

The areas that this book covers are generally covered well; however, I was hoping for a book that was broader in scope. It really ought to be called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Judicial Tyranny" or something to that effect as this is the area that the author focuses the most on. The author did do a good job covering judicial tyranny and explaining how the judicial branch has far exceeded the power the Founding Fathers intended it to have. He also provides an excellent overview of the history of the Constitution and the various conventions, which I learned a great deal from. However, legislative and executive tyranny and abuse of the Constitution only receive brief mentions; for example, he addresses some of Abraham Lincoln's more blatant violations of the Constitution and does a good job covering the problem of secession but doesn't address more contemporary Constitutional issues like the PATRIOT Act, military commissions, secret prisons, and undeclared wars. Yes, I do realize this is a book about Constitutional law, so one could argue that legislative and executive tyranny aren't strictly Constitutional law issues, but if that's true, why the discussion of Lincoln's violation of the Constitution? In any case, issues like the PATRIOT Act have become Constitutional law issues now and there have been several court rulings on them. Another issue I was surprised the author omitted was interpretive methodology, which I consider a serious problem with the book. He simply assumes originalism without explaining or defending it, and he doesn't really distinguish between the different kinds of textualism (textualism vs. authorial intent). Given his intended audience, there's a pretty good chance that many people will either not understand originalism or disagree with it outright (e.g. proponents of the "living Constitution" theory of interpretation), so he really should have addressed this. With that said, this book is still very informative and provides an important perspective on a number of issues, so it receives my recommendation.

How was the Constitution explained and proposed to the people in the states during the ratification process? Kevin Gutzman explains the original understanding: the Constitution would bind the federal government to a careful assignment of expressly granted powers, leaving all other powers to the states. While the federal government was to have only a few, limited and defined powers, most issues concerning our daily lives were to remain in the states where they always had been. Gutzman then takes us on a journey through time, visiting one court decision after another. We see before our very eyes the unraveling of the Constitution and the constant usurpation of self-government. The powers of the federal government are "interpreted" more and more broadly, and the limitations on the states are "interpreted" more and more broadly. The result has been a total inversion of the intended system, a rewriting of the Constitution without the formal consent of the people. The reader soon realizes that Constitutional Law (the case law that the judges force Americans to live under) has become far different from the actual Constitution (what the people actually consented to through ratification). Gutzman's book gives a great description of the history of the adoption of the Constitution, and does a great job contrasting the original intent with what the judges have given us. This book is highly recommended!

Americans have been arguing about the Constitution since before it was the Constitution. Even the most cursory review of the ratification debates in the state conventions of the late 18th century will reveal that there were many serious concerns about the Constitution at the time it was being adopted. The Bill of Rights in particular is a concession to the concerns about a federal government, and it has been an important constraint on government power ever since. This book represents the strain in American politics that has followed from those first anti-federalists, concerns that serve as an important counterweight in our political discourse about what the proper role of the federal government is. That said, this book is a flawed presentation of that perspective because frankly I think it may underestimate its audience and pander to certain political views more than is helpful. There is an enduring skepticism of Federal Court action in restricting the states that has been in existence since Warren Court's decision in Brown v. The Board of Education in 1954. For many people, the idea that the federal government can tell States what to do in traditional State areas of authority such as public schools, police powers, and voting rights is troubling. What such a view, and it is a legitimate one, has to contend with is the effect of the Reconstruction Amendments (the 13th, 14th, and 15th) on the division of power between Congress and the States. Those amendments explicitly give Congress power against the States to enforce the provisions of those amendments which deal with the rights of all citizens and persons living in the United States. The hard question that this book gestures at, but that I think it ultimately fails to adequately address (and please know that I'm trying very hard to be charitable here. The author's treatment of the reconstruction amendments at best only narrowly avoids full-on tinfoil hat territory in its engagement with the thoroughly uncreditable idea that there was a problem with the ratification of the Reconstruction amendments which makes them not legitimate sources of law. Although as the author has pointed out in his reply to this review, his only contention is related to the strong-arm tactics used to ratify the 14th Amendment, any cursory examination of neo-confederate conspiracy theories on the subject will soon uncover similar complaints about the other reconstruction amendments.) is to what extent the increase in federal power of Congress over the states that came with the Reconstruction Amendments impacts the judicial power of the federal courts. The reason this is a hard question is because to a great extent congress has the ability to limit the authority of Federal Courts to hear certain kinds of cases. This power is granted to congress in Article III of the constitution, and is the most important check on judicial power put in place by the framers of the Constitution. To be sure, there are good arguments against the doctrine of substantive due process and selective incorporation. What is given too little treatment, however, is the fact that much of that doctrine is a result of the Court trying to contend with its own earlier decisions which have also placed strict limits on what the Constitution allows the federal government to protect against State action. In particular, the Slaughterhouse Cases from the 1880s prevented much of what has been done under selective incorporation from being enforced against the states by the most clear route, which is the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th amendment. Notably, in the recent incorporation of the 2nd Amendment against the states by the Roberts court, which was done under substantive due process, Justice Thomas's concurring opinion made a strong case that Slaughterhouse should be overruled and that the right to keep and bear arms should be incorporated under the privileges or immunities clause rather than the due process clause. Which is to say that the "judicial activism" that this book is a screed against can indeed cut both ways, and it's noteworthy that the same doctrines which have been used to uphold the right to privacy and strike down state actions that have been seen as establishments of religion have also been used to protect gun rights, contract rights, and property rights. Where I think this book falls short is in its failure to give adequate treatment to those places where the Court using its authority first asserted in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 to strike down unconstitutional laws have in fact been used to protect important individual liberties. To be sure, the Court makes mistakes, it gets things wrongs, and it often makes policy decisions that have a sweeping impact on the rights and privileges of Americans and the various states. But it is possible to understate those places where the same doctrines criticized in this book have been used to protect and secure those rights against state action. It is in that understatement that this book fails to present an adequate picture of the Constitution and the Courts. Overall, this book is worth reading as an introduction to the issues here, but I highly recommend that this be the first rather than the last book that people read about how the Courts work in our federal system of government. From here further reading of books by Antonin Scalia, Richard Posner, and Robert Bork, as well as more liberal Judges and scholars like Benjamin Cardozo, Goodwin Liu and Stephen Breyer will provide interested readers a fuller and more nuanced picture of the role of Federal Courts in American policy.

I had just read The Revolution by Ron Paul when I saw this book. Interested in learning more about the Constitution I thought it looked promising. I had no idea what a treat I was in for. I couldn't put it down. Kevin Gutzman masterfully lays out how the constitution has been used and abused to achieve political ends that were not intended to be achieved. And the abuses started happening from the beginning, before the ink was even dry on the document. This book will help any reader gain a better understanding of the purpose of the constitution, what it says, what the framers meant, and how that has been ignored by far too many Supreme Court justices, Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen in the quest for power over the people. Gutzman is an excellent guide and by bringing out the human element in this fascinating journey he makes it very interesting to read. I highly recommend you read this book. Enjoy!

Despite its satirical title, Kevin Gutzman's guide to our Constitution is a serious study of both "original intent" and the antecedents of our constitutional republic. Not written in lawyers' "legalese", but in a pithy, yet informative style, it is truly a pleasure to read. Professor Gutzman's book accurately documents how "revisionist" federal judges and "progressive" legislators have systematically distorted our most precious founding document. For those who have ever wondered what "constitutional originalists" actually believe, The Politically Incorrect Guide To The Constitution will provide all the answers. Likewise, if you are citizen-voter interested in how changes in legal interpretation and political ideology have impacted American history, then this may also be the source for which you have been searching. Its publication is most timely, because these are certainly issues that will be at the forefront of debate in Election 2008. Robert W. Faubel, M.A. Former Fellow, James Madison Foundation

This is a very informative book. It is shocking to see how much has been done right from the beginning to destroy the underpinnings of this country. Everyone should read this and immediately start petitioning your state government to work against the damage done to us by the Supreme(?!?) Court, to the point of resuming the authority ceded to the federal government.

Professor Gutzman has written a very insightful book and I'm inclined to agree with most of his observations but it might have been well to discuss some of the problems that might have arisen had the constitution not been violated. Specifically, he makes a strong argument (with which, in fact, I agree) that the South had every right to secede from the union but he ignores the fact that out of the unconstitutional and misnamed Civil War that folowed, emerged the greatest nation in the history of the world. Granted it was no longer a federation as the framers intended but had we not become the magnificent nation that we did what would have happened in the 20th century? Would we now all be speaking German, or Russian, or perhaps even Japanese? Would free market capitalism have been replaced by a fascist state run economy or perhaps, even worse, incentive stifling communism? While I do decry the fact that the constitution has been repeatedly violated, a question that should be explored is "was it sustainable without modification in the first place?" Unfortunately the book is marred by Professor Gutzman's reference to the 1860 presidential candidacy of James Buchanan. Most regular readers of U.S. history are aware that James Buchanan was not a candidate in 1860 and had made that fact clear well in advance of the conventions that did select the candidates. Gutzman, as a professor of American History at Connecticut State University, certainly should have known better. In spite of these drawbacks the book is an excellent and insightful read and well worth a spot on your library shelf.

Strait, to the point, and full of historical facts that you won't learn in school because the left doesn't like the truth being told to the masses. It would have recieved a 5 but it went a little too deep into the issues with the Supreme Court; it should have been called PIG to the Constitution and the Blackrobes...

... but when I do, its because I'm very satisfied with this book! It held my attention, and was very well-written; it was to the point, and very entertaining. It enlightened me, and it changed the way I think about the Constitution and it's history. To the people who wrote negative reviews about this book: I did not find anything in the book that indicated Gutzman's political bias, he simply shows us what the real Constitution is like. I'd recommend this book to anyone, especially someone who just started learning about the Constitution. Great for future law school students, like me. It will be worth your time. :)

I am admittedly far more liberal and "politically correct" than many of the readers this book will initially attract. That should not discourage anyone from engaging with Prof. Gutzman's lively interpretation of the Court and the Constitution. His deep concern about the meaning of law and the ideas which shape this nation make this an outstanding work. I would recommend this to anyone interested in Constitutional history and the debates which inform our understanding of law.

Dr. Gutzman's book shares space on my shelf with my Heritage Guide to the Constitution; this is a must have book for anyone concerned with original intent, the judiciary, or even simply traditional America. I'd remark that if the book challenges you, don't lash out and assume that the indoctrination you were subjected to was correct. Keep an open mind, use other resources to check what you're reading, and prepare yourself for the inevitable: you're going to realize that what you think you know about the Constitution is probably off from reality. I especially enjoyed his commentary on the 14th Amendment - the more you learn about it the more screwed up you're apt to consider the Judiciary. Bottom line: well-written and logical resource with few peers with respect to its importance in understanding the Constitution and the Judiciary.

Finally someone has written a book which strikes at the core of the illegitimate (unconstitutional) present form of govnerment in the United States. Many attempts to write a book like this have failed. (Though William Watkin's "Reclaiming the American Revolution" would be a good follow up after reading Dr. Gutzman's book as an introduction). Books written by such authors as Andrew Napolitano advocate using federal judicial power to serve "conservative" ends; such as the national "liberty of contract" doctrine the federal courts conjured during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "Liberty of contract" was complete nonsense from a constitutional standpoint (as Dr. Gutzman makes clear). Napolitano would like to see "substantive due process" (based on the 14th amendment-- "ratified" at gunpoint) used for policy purposes he prefers. In this regard, Napolitano's policy based judicial philosophy is akin to the kind of philosophy which Gutzman shows to have destroyed our federal system of government. To my knowledge this is the first book which clearly rips apart the US Supreme Court's "incorporation doctrine," which turned a shield erected by the states against their agent, the "federal" government, into a weapon the federal courts use against the states, the people, and local self-government. Two key things Dr. Gutzman left out of his "incorporation doctrine" discussion are (i) the preamble to the bill of rights, (ii) a discussion of the 9th amendment, and (iii) the lost history of the 9th amendment. (i) According to the preamble to the federal bill of rights, "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution." So essentially, the bill of rights was put in place "to prevent misconstruction or abuse" of federal power. Though Dr. Gutzman doesn't specifically mention the preamble, he does a masterful job of explaining that the bill of rights is only supposed to protect individual liberties from interference by the federal government by making clear that Congress can only pass laws pursuant to its enumerated delegation of legislative power spelled out in Article I Section VIII. The states wanted to reserve power, not to grant additional power to the fed. As Dr. Gutzman also shows, the 14th Amendment, despite not being ratified pursuant to Article V, did nothing to change the plain meaning of the bill of rights. (ii) Dr. Gutzman focuses plenty on the 10th amendment, which Jefferson considered the "cornerstone" of the Constitution, but he seems to neglect the 9th amendment. The 9th basically says that just because certain rights have been listed in the first 8 amendments does not mean that other rights are not also protected from federal interference. To illustrate, the 2nd amendment was put in place because of what happened yesterday (June 13, 2007- the US House passed a law placing new restrictions on gun owners). This gun law is not "necessary and proper to carry into execution" any of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress. The 2nd amendment, in lehman's terms, says, Congress, you don't have authority to pass restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Just so that you (Congress) don't get any crazy ideas, you're explictly barred from passing this law by the 2nd amendment. The 9th amendment would protect the right to bear arms from federal interference if the 2nd amendment didn't exist. The 9th and 10th amendments were really meant to work together to make it clear that Congress is strictly restricted to its enumerated powers. If Congress wanted more legislative power, Congress would have to ask for the power and the states would have to delegate that power (pursuant to Article V). (iii) In brief, 12 amendments were sent out to the states in 1791, but only 10 were ratified. The 9th Amendment was originally called "Article the eleventh" since it was #11 in the list of 12. There was extensive early case law on the 9th amendment, but it was still referred to as "article the eleventh" in those days. When Gutzman discusses the destructive effect of court decisions from the 1960s, the Supreme Court couldn't find case law on the 9th amendment. Believing that there was a clean slate on 9th amendment law, the Supreme Court felt that it could create law. This sad accident of legal history isn't mentioned in Gutzman's book, but it has been studied extensively by Kurt Lash. ----------------------------- From the fraudulent reassurances which the so-called "Federalists" perpetrated on the state ratification conventions, to John Marshall's destructive nationalist agenda, to the War for Southern Independence, to the consolidation of all power in Washington DC during the 1930s via the destruction of the commerce clause, through the court's arbitrary decisions of the 1960s--- Dr. Gutzman puts together the most objective and historically accurate introduction available for those interested in learning why things in Washington don't seem to make sense. After reading this excellent book, you might find yourself filled with a desire to see the Supreme Court building razed to the ground. However, the only real solution to the problem of judicial (and federal) usurpation is through the threat of secession. Jefferson warned that if the federal government was made the final judge of its own powers that the federal government, and not the constitution, would be the supreme law of the land. Jefferson was right. The Declaration of Independence explains how to fix things... but in the meantime a good initial step in righting the ship (other than repealing the 16th and 17th amendments) would be to elect Dr. Ron Paul as President. Maybe Dr. Gutzman should run as his Vice-President?

The most interesting part of this book is the portion covering the creation of the Constitution. Did you know that the framers of the Constitution were not even authorized by the states that had sent them out to even create it? They were sent out to review whether The Articles of Confederation could be improved. Instead they were bamboozled into throwing the original contract between the states out the window in favor of forming a new contract, which created the Federal Government. Using the original contract between the states, The Articles of Confederation, the United States was able to defeat what was back then the most powerful army in the world. If we had stuck to the original compact we would have no President, since there is no such mention or need in The Articles of Confederation, except in wartime since each state was independent and sovereign. Imagine, no more Federal laws. No Federal income tax funding endless wars and financing dictators around the world. I rather be without a Federal Government and have United but independent and sovereign States then constant war, a worthless fiat paper dollar and a crushing debit which threatens to bring down the whole house of cards.

I read the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and found it very interesting. This is a bit of a slower read, but still offers a perspective and detail we (or at least I) never obtained from college, let alone high school.

Fantastic book! This writer really knows his stuff. Although I had read the Constitution before, and was well versed in American History, this book cuts through the claptrap that most history books and professors are wont to spin. More people need to know what the basis of our laws really are. That way, they can judge for themselves if the current Supreme Court decisions are "just" or just more alteration of the original intent of the Constitution.

This may be the most clear and perceptive view of the causes of the destruction of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court and those politicians that refuse to read or understand the Constitution have usurped our Liberties and are making economic prosperity sluggish. I've read all of Kevin's books to date and will read whatever he puts into print. I wish they had a six star rating.

Yes, I got this book, read it, enjoyed it and think it gives reasoned arguments on why the courts and government just "invents" the law. But, this subject is covered in other books, one of the best of the lot is

I have taken classes in Constitutional Law as an undergraduate and now in law school, and they don't teach us any of this! While I was somewhat familiar with some of this book's inconvenient truths regarding the (d)evolution of our Constitution, never have I seen them put together in such a succinct way. By cataloging the changes in Constitutional doctrine in the context of historical trends, Mr. Gutzman does a masterful job of explaining how we got the Constitution we have today. The context he provides for (in)famous Court decisions over the years gives the reader a new perspective on the "cornerstone cases" of American Constitutional Law. This should be mandatory reading for any law student or citizen who wants a different explanation from that promulgated by "mainstream" Constitutional theorists and college professors.

For what my opinion is worth, this is one of the most important books of the past 25 years. There is absolutely nothing like it, anywhere. This is not another of the toothless and forgettable laments about the death of the Constitution at the hands of activist judges that we read from time to time from the right-wing pundit class, though of course author Kevin Gutzman decries both of these things. This is a far more sweeping, much more fundamentally devastating indictment of the Supreme Court, of the "legal training" that raises up ever more people to perpetuate its record of dishonesty and usurpation, and of the American regime at large -- which rests on the legal fictions Gutzman shreds in his book. To those who weep over the Constitution's neglect these past 50 or 100 years, Gutzman shows that defiance of that document has gone on from the beginning, starting in the 1790s. An expert on colonial and early republican Virginia -- and who has been published in all the major professional journals -- Gutzman knows the Virginia ratifying convention inside and out. He knows the promises made to the people, and the assurances that Virginia's ratifiers inserted into that state's ratification instrument. And he shows that Jefferson and his allies were faithful to those principles and promises, and that the so-called Federalists and their present-day apologists (which includes just about everybody) were not. John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, comes in for some serious scholarly thrashing as well. Marshall is all too typically held up as an idol before conservatives and even libertarians, and he remains a central icon of early American history. For Gutzman, Marshall is an outright opponent -- and a dishonest one at that -- of the legal principles on which the people of the states were promised their new government would be based. Where else can you find such an iconoclastic portrayal? Gutzman also treats a great many politically incorrect subjects from a constitutional perspective. I won't spoil the surprise by giving everything away, but if you happen to have a thing for being told the truth rather than lies, you'll read and cheer. It's going to be fun to watch the so-called constitutional lawyers try to attack Gutzman's book. Gutzman, who holds a law degree as well as a Ph.D. in history, is uniquely positioned to parry any such attacks: unlike his opponents he actually knows early American history, not just a string of unfounded Supreme Court decisions purporting to be "constitutional law." (This is one reason, Gutzman says, that "legal training should not be confused with an education.") Although I was revisiting much familiar ground as I read this book, even I was shocked at how dishonest the federal courts have been over the years. And Gutzman just eviscerates all of it, slashing and burning everything in sight, and holding up the ludicrous series of fictions that pass for "constitutional law" to hilarious derision. Gutzman isn't supposed to do any of this, of course, since the continuation of the racket depends on popular ignorance. To the legal establishment he is like the man who shouts out in the middle of the show how the magician is really sawing the woman in half. This book, the most Jeffersonian constitutional history ever written, is an absolute MUST. It will leave you gasping for air.

I read this book twice, and we are going to use it in homeschooling my daughter.

This book, if you can follow along, (i have never been good at history) will open your eyes to what really happened hundreds of years ago, how the document created by the founders of our country went into effect and how we are no longer under the law of the Constitution but rather, meritime law which is literally made up by individuals lucky enough to serve The Supreme Court based on their personal views/agendas. A must-read. Educate yourselves. [...]

I recently read this book and I am glad that I did. I learned a lot even though I thought I was well versed in the Constitution. I tip my hat to the author and I highly recommend this book!

Fantastic book. I had always thought I had a better than average understanding of the constitution. This book made clear how deficient it was. Well written and easy to understand.

This book is an eye-opener on the impact of the Supreme Court on the history of this country. The book is written with humor and is easy to read. If you think our constitution sets the parameters for our laws, guess again! I liked this well-documented book.

History as it should be taught! We live in a profoundly different time and the Constitution's original intent has been eroded and dismantled over time. No where else can you find the truths expressed in this book.

This is one of the most clearly written of all the PIGs I've read. From the first page to the last I was thoroughly PO'd at the Judiciary's attempts (and successes) at stealing power away from the other two branches of government and the People.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is exelent. It gave me a different way to look at a number of court cases I was already familiar with and helped put them in a historical and ideological context. It could use a little more detail on cases and consequences.

I read the free excerpt of this book from the link first pages and I am a bit puzzled. The author claims that while it was true that the Americans had had no representation in parliament for a long time and had restrictive export laws that were not in their favor, the British had a lenient policy toward the colonies, primarily letting them handle their own affairs in their state legislating bodies. He claims that the real trouble started when the British wanted to recoup their debt from the French and Indian War by taxing the colonies. According to him, this was the colonists primary beef, and the thing that drove them to be willing to go to war. But what about the reasons that the colonists themselves said caused them to declare their independence? There are twenty-seven reasons listed, many of which have to do with what they saw as oppressive interference in their local state governance, with king George abusing his power and interfering in things that the state congresses should have been left alone to deal with. Out of the twenty seven reasons given the taxation without representation problem is only number 17. In the twentieth century liberal academians started propounding the economic theory of the revolution and formation of the United States of America. They believed that greed, money, is the real driving force that motivates people. So they ignored all the other reasons that the colonists gave, all the abuses of power by King George, etc. etc. in favor of this one explanation. In politically correct history, that is all that ever gets taught. But I thought this was supposed to be the Politcally Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. I think people would be better off to read the constitution itself, and before doing that the declaration, with some commentary and help if needed to understand it, than to read what others say about it, which may be warped, with all the contamination of political incorrectness everyone has been exposed to. It is better to read the documents and writings of the people that were there than historians interpretation of them.

I enjoy the "politically incorrect guide" series, so I was pleasantly surprised to find a copy of this book on sale at the Seattle airport three days before the publication date. While I like the concept of a "politically incorrect" (i.e., conservative/libertarian) treatment of the Constitution, I found the execution uneven and quite dull at times. Don't get me wrong - there's material here worth reading, but the style of this book simply is not on a par with the other books in the series, which I found to be more lively and engaging.

This isn't a very accurate portrait of the US Constitution, the founding fathers, or the concept of judicial review. The author cherry picks writings and policy arguments from Jefferson and others to support an intentionalist view of the Constitution while ignoring writings and political views that contradict his view. This is a book with a political agenda. It is not a true guide to our Constitution or our history.

The fact that Gutzman talks about President Buchanan not having a chance of being re-elected in 1860 stunned me since Buchanan made it clear from the beginning that he would serve only one term. Such an error on such a basic fact calls into question what else he may have gotten wrong. The book is a good introduction on the juduciary running amuck but I wouldn't want to rely on it for a comprehensive understanding of what has happened to the Constitution.