Constitutional Stupidities, Constitutional Tragedies

By Sanford Levinson

Book Overview

The country's most esteemed constitutional commentators consider the Constitution's greatest flaws

The Constitution is the cornerstone of American government, hailed as one of the greatest contributions of the Western Enlightenment. While many seem content simply to celebrate it, those most familiar with the document invariably find it wanting in at least some aspects.
This unique volume brings together many of the country's most esteemed constitutional commentators and invites them to answer two questions: First, what is the stupidest provision of the Constitution? "Stupid" need not mean evil. Thus, a second, related question is whether the scholar-interpreter would be forced to reach truly evil results even if applying his or her own favored theory of constitutional interpretation.

The contributors include Lawrence Alexander, Akhil Reed Amar, Jack Balkin, Philip Bobbitt, Gerard Bradley, Rebecca Brown, Steven Calabresi, Lief Carter, Christopher Eisgruber, Lawrence Sager, Marie Failinger, Daniel Farber, James Fleming, Mark Graber, Stephen Griffin, Gary Jacobsohn, Randall Kennedy, Lewis LaRue, Theodore Lowi, Earl Maltz, Michael McConnell, Matthew Michael, Robert Nagel, Daniel Ortiz, Pamela Karlen, Michael Paulsen, Robert Post, Lucas Powe, Dorothy Roberts, Jeffrey Rosen, Frederick Schauer, Michael Seidman, Suzanna Sherry, David Strauss, Laurence Tribe, Mark Tushnet, and John Yoo.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0814751326
• ISBN13: 9780814751329
• Release Date: June 1998
• Publisher: New York University Press
• Length: 296 Pages
• Weight: 0.92 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 6.0" x 8.9"

Customer Reviews

At times funny, but always thought-provoking

Although this is a collection of essays that all constitutional scholars will want to have on their shelves, it is also something that non-lawyers who are interested in the U.S. Constitution will be interested in.The impetus for this work was a symposium in "Constitutional Commentary," which is a faculty-run law review based at the Univ. of Minn. law school. In 1995, the law review published responses from leading constitutional scholars about what they thought was the stupidest provision in the Constitution. Most of those responses are reprinted here, either in the original form, or edited if the author chose to do so. In addition, other scholars write here on what they thought were the greatest "tragedies" of the Constitution (with, one should note, numerous introductory dissertations on what constitutes a tragedy).Among the stupidities: (1) if Al Gore (as the vice-president) were impeached, say for fundraising scandals, he would be entitled to preside over his own Senate trial!; (2) California, which has about 65 times the population of Wyoming, has the same number of Senators -- a result that cannot be amended; and (3) because it is the Electoral College -- and not the voters -- who actually elect the president, it is theoretically possible that a person will be elected president who receives fewer popular votes than his/her opponent.I personally found Georgetown law professor Mark Tushnet's response to the be the most amusing: "The Whole Thing."This is an easily accessible book, and despite the seemingly frivolous nature of the topic, it actually provides very serious commentary on the U.S. Constitution.