Score: 4.5 / 5
Category: Law, Constitutional Law, History
Strongly Recommended
My Thoughts: Prof. Chemerinsky proves once again why he is one of the (if not THE) most influential constitutional scholars of our generation. This books outlines a number of 5 - 4 decisions from the Burger, Reinquist, and Roberts courts that have taken the country away from the promise created by the Warren Court, and in a very conservative direction. Indeed, with the exit of O'Connor and the addition of Alito, the 5-4 votes have become even more predictable, and even more dangerous for basic civil rights.
The book itself is what you would expect. Impeccably well researched and thoughtful, but represents the opinion of a constitutional scholar who believes in a broad interpretation of the constitution and a power federal government. This fact does not make his insights any less valuable, however, I found that I did not always agree with him on everything. Prof. C argued, exceptionally well in almost every instance, for the defense of basic rights we have come to rely on, such as Miranda, Access to the Courthouse, Privacy, etc. However, the point at which I found myself diverging with his view was when he would suggest there were numerous constitutional rights we have not yet discovered in the Constitution.
For instance, he begins the book with a discussion of how Conservatives have undone the promise of Brown v. Board, and re-segregated most inner city school. I completely agreed with his belief that the 14th Amendment prohibits the negative use of Race, but not the positive use of race (think "using race to oppress one race (negative) vs. using race to equalize the rights/privileges/opportunities of the races (positive)). This is not the first time that I have heard this argument with regard to the intent of the 14th Amendment's drafters, yet it is a reality ignored by the conservative block, despite their claims of fidelity to intent.
Where I diverge from Prof. C is when he calls for a Constitutional right to Education. I do not believe such a right exists in the FEDERAL constitution. Education was left to the states, and I believe that is a correct practice. Even though we might wish to impose a liberal view on many of the backwards states through federal control, there is always the danger that the reverse might happen. Conservatives might take control of government and impose a terrible education system on progressive states (in fact, this has happened over the past 40 years, e.g. NCLB). Each state should be free to create their own systems, and free to interpret a right to Education out of their own State Constitutions. But the Federal Government should stay out of education as much as possible, lest we inadvertently allow the Texas Textbook Massacre to spread to progressive states and corrupt their education systems.
There were a few other instances where I found I did not agree, but it was almost always limited to situations where Prof. C wanted to CREATE new constitutional rights. I agreed in every instance where I wanted to preserve or expand rights that already existed. Like Prof. C I believe that more freedom is almost always a good thing (though the expansion of Gun rights may be an exception).
Overall, GREAT book, very informative and educational. The only reason it doesn't get a 5 is because he goes just slightly further than I would be comfortable with, but If we had someone like this on the Court, we would certainly be in a better position than we are at present. An excellent, and very fast read. Worth the few hours it will take you to finish.
Buy it on Amazon
Common Sense
No comments:
Post a Comment