Excelente libro, plantea la dinámica Constitucional como un juego de tensiones de dos momentos diferentes, en momentos de tranquilidad, o en momentos donde la sociedad se plantea algún cambio o pretende reforzar alguna idea, oportunidad ésta en la que el ciudadano debe según el autor ocuparse y preocuparse y tomar una participación más activa. en ese marco de doble juego es como hay que interpretar la constitución que inclusive es modificada via validación de la Corte de los nuevos pensamientos de la gente, así paso por ejemplo con el new deal, donde la SCOTUS comprendió lo que quería la gente e hizo el cambio a tiempo que evitó su aumento y paso a acompañar al gobierno de Roosevelt ( )

Ackerman is one of the most influential scholars concerning U.S. Constitutional history, but influential does not necessarily mean that I would consider his writings on the subject to be good. His research is certainly top notch - you cannot fault him on this score. And his account of history is clearly accurate.

But that isn't why people cite Ackerman. Almost any U.S. History or Law School professor could present the identical research and history just as accurately and, in many cases, just as well. Ackerman is cited because of his cheerleading for the doctrine of "popular sovereignty" in issues of Constitutional law. When he talks about "Constitutional moments" in the 19th century, he invariably talks about significant changes in the structure of U.S. government driven by changes to the Constitution itself via the amendment process. On the other hand, when he talks about "Constitutional moments" in the 20th century, he focuses on the "switch in time that saved nine" where a fundamental change to the Constitution was effected without the need to bother with such formalities as amending the document.

It is Ackerman's unreserved approval of this sea change in the way the Constitution is interpreted, and his attempts to argue that this isn't even a change to some extent, that makes the book weak. Ackerman is so ardent in his love for popular sovereignty that he doesn't bother to consider the huge negative effects that have resulted, or to consider historical pre-"switch" examples where the Supreme Court attempted to divine popular sentiment and came up with horrible decisions as a result and the possibility that the modern Supreme Court, unfettered by the "switch" might be making decisions of similar negative impact (I cite, for example, the Dred Scott case, where Taney attempted to settle the slavery question once and for all, and compare that to Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade that attempted to do the same thing with respect to abortion; both have failed to do anything of the kind, and made the rancor over the issue worse).

Ackerman never seems to reflect on the fact that once you leave the text of the Constitution, everything is up for grabs. As a result, we now have a bitterly divided electorate mostly divided over issues that have been placed beyond the reach of the political process, and an abandonment of many of the restrictions of the Constitution in favor of expediency (such as the change to treaty ratifying, things like the War Powers Act and so on).

The fact that Ackerman explains popular sovereignty and details its history is not the weakness of the book. The fact that Ackerman is so obviously a fan of the idea and doesn't really examine the huge and somewhat obvious negative implications of the doctrine, is. ( )