Founding FathersCritiques

Great history and essays to help understand the significance of this document.

First read the whole Constitution in my Criminal Justice class in senior year of high school, but I have read it in parts many times since, in undergraduate Constitutional Law, Civil Liberties, and Political Theory classes, and, of course, as a law student and as a practicing lawyer.

I can't remember if I've heard the full Declaration--maybe once or twice as a kid. However, as an adult, I can appreciate just how well this was written. I forgot about politics--someone knew how to write. I also listened to Old Time Radio on Librivox, so it had that WWII-esque radio vibe adding a sense of history and drama.

A technical but easy and interesting read for historical curiosity. Many things have changed, naturally, but a lot hasn't.

Definitely great texts to study.

Okay, this is random and I'm gonna delete it and write a proper review later, but I need to tell you guys something funny.

So basically we're studying this in school for AP Lang rhetorics or something of that sort, and usually the course is very sophisticated except guess what one of the questions on one of our quizzes says? The question is "Which of these uses ethos?" and literally one of the answers is "We are starving because the food, if you can call this slop "food," at our school is not fit for the lowest grub on this fine Earth!"

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the extraordinary documents upon which our nation's government is built. Written by a group of visionary thinkers, they are indeed the very cornerstones of the United States government that have ensured "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for generations of Americans.

Mas interesante de lo que hubiera pensado. Habla mas que otra cosa de como funciona el gobierno. Cosas como que el congreso tiene dos camaras y cuantos representantes por estado hay en el senado, etc.

Tiene sentido en general, excepto los electores. Que sistema mas complicado, incluso lo intentaron amendar despues pero no veo la diferencia, sigue siendo confuso y complicado.

Read on the 26th of May, 2021. I quickly zapped through the book in less than thirty minutes. I am not going to rate or date this book, since this is a document and not a 'book'.

This is a very useful collection of the key documents from the founding of the USA. In addition to the Declaration and Constitution, it includes documents that are not as familiar: the Articles of Confederation and the Treaty of Paris. The book would, however, have been helped by some introductory text for each document.

This is a review of the Penguin Little Black Classics edition!

How can you rate such a relevant, influential and world-famous text? I certainly don't feel up to the task, but I wanted to rate my reading experience.
The Penguin Little Black Classics edition includes the Constitution, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, the amendments, and the Declaration of Independence. I think it was very interesting to read the whole text as opposed to just extracts and quotes, especially now at this point in history. I had no real idea what exactly the amendments were, or that the first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights (I'm sure I learned this in school years ago, but forgot about it). It was also interesting to see which amendment was added when, as it gives an overview of how politics developed (and I did a little jump when 1920 came up and women gained the right to vote!).
I think it would be useful to have an introduction or an afterword, but the Little Black Classics usually don't have that kind of addition, so it's not an aspect to criticize.
Of course this was a quick read as it is just a slim volume, but it was very worthwhile.

An excellent reproduction I ordered online from the Nation Archives store.

I'm sure that I read these documents when I was in high school civics, I don't know if I read them word for word. This book contains the two documents listed in the title and the Articles of Confederation, which was the forerunner for the U.S. Constitution. It was interesting to see how these two documents compared. The book opens with a short history of the U.S. Constitution with a historical facts that I found interesting. The U.S. Constitution was not to be the paragon of political theory but it was meant to be a compromise among a group of constituents. It was a compromise between the federalists and states rights advocates. Although some wish that the constitution to be more easily changed, a system was established to prevent knee-jerk alterations. Therefore, today's constitution is similar to the document that was created 200+ years ago. For example, since its ratification in 1789, 12,000+ amendments have been proposed with only 33 of these amendments passed by Congress and turned over to the states, and of these only 27 have been ratified. Do the math! Only .225% or a fifth of one percent of proposed amendments have been ratified. The founding fathers were smart in creating a governmental framework in the US Constitution that prevent it from being altered by whims of the prevailing culture. I'm not proposing that it is a perfect document; however, with the number of participants with their respective prejudices and biases, it is the best document at that time that could have been produced.

There are so many things that I would like to say, about how ground-breaking these papers are, how astute the authors were...but I'll just say that every American should read it.

While the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America was and remains a document of uplifting ideals, those ideals have yet to be fully put into practice. The Constitution, while perhaps a reasonable compromise in the time it was written given the objectives of the men who framed it, is today in sore need up updating, as Thomas Jefferson himself held.

While the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America was and remains a document of uplifting ideals, those ideals have yet to be fully put into practice. The Constitution, while perhaps a reasonable compromise in the time it was written given the objectives of the men who framed it, is today in sore need up updating, as Thomas Jefferson himself held.

Essential reading.

This is a hard book to write a review for because it’s just a collection of writings.

The overall selection of writings was pretty good. Although I did find that the rules of baseball was an odd pick to include. I love baseball and all (it’s my favorite sport) but I don’t think it’s that important. Baseball isn’t that groundbreaking. I would have also loved to have seen more Supreme Court rulings since there was only one (Brown v. Board of Education). However, that’s just a personal preference because I love reading the Supreme Court Justices’ opinions.

One of my favorite writings was the Susan B. Anthony one. There were few female writings in here so it was nice to see Susan B. Anthony included.

My least favorite by far was the Social Security Act. That was a total snooze fest. It was over 40 pages and so dry. I also felt that it could have been replaced by a few, more interesting writings.

All in all, this is a really solid collection of fundamental American writings. I definitely recommend it if you are looking for a comprehensive collection of American documents and speeches.½

I've taken Con Law classes and read pieces and parts of The Constitution, but recently decided it's high time I read the whole thing! And I feel pretty good having done so! I made some notes on a few things I want to research, but on the whole I was rather pleased to confirm that I had a solid grasp of my own Constitutional rights even before this reading. I did, however, make some surprising (to me) observations...

The scant number (27) of amendments is rather impressive when one considers that it took THREE of them for Congress to wholly grant citizenship rights to non-whites born here (and even then, additional and ongoing legislation is still necessary to accomplish that end. ) Alas, I don't see where all the "excluding Indians" language was ever actually removed and I wonder about that?

Toss in the two Amendments wasted on prohibition and its repeal, and several addressing logistics (like representation for D.C. and appointing a new VP if the old VP assumes the Presidency in an emergency,) and we're pretty much left with Income Tax (1913) and Votes for Women (1920) after the big ten of The Bill of Rights.

Which brings me to the observation that most troubles my feeble mind...

Unlike the scores of legal documents I read in my past professional life, the Constitution fails to define its own terms! It never actually defines "people," or "person" much less "citizen." I find this to be exceedingly baffling!

The document starts out "We the People," and ends with the signatures of individuals selected to represent the population at-large immediately following the Revolution. I suppose this usage of "The People" harks back to the Articles of Confederation, and perhaps I'll find some answers there regarding that flowery opening proclamation and what gave those yahoos the idea that they could speak for everybody.

But what MOST astonishes me is the frequent use of "persons," and not "citizens," throughout the Constitution. I am so embarrassed to admit I never noticed this distinction (or lack thereof) before, and it significantly affects my previous personal positions regarding things like the treatment of suspected terrorists and similar timely topics. To my mind, the Constitution has always enumerated the rights of "Citizens" of the United States. However, it clearly extends those rights and protections beyond that. And now the question is, how far??

Looks like I've got more Important Documents to read...

** I read an edition with ratification notes and the full text of amendments, which was published for the Constitution's Bicentennial in 1987. ** I made a point of confirming that we've passed one amendment since then....only took Congress nearly TWO HUNDRED AND THREE FREAKIN' YEARS to pass a prohibition against raising their own salaries. Course, unless we establish term limits it doesn't really make any difference that Congressional raises don't take place until after subsequent elections. I note that Term Limits for Congressional reps has never even been presented for ratification....doubt I'll see that in my lifetime.

P.S. The documents also fails to define "militia." Regardless, I am still absolutely, positively, incontrovertibly in favor of much stronger gun control!

Our Constitution is a great document, well worth examining. Since much has been said in our time concerning what priority Christianity should have in our governing process, I thought it would be worth finding out what the Constitution says on the subject. Here’s how I proceeded.

First, I found the text of the Constitution online and searched for “God” and then added some other relevant words. Here’s the list:
• God
• Creator
• Savior
• Christianity (or Christian or Christ)
• Jesus
• Holy
• Bible
• Church
• Sin

Next, the text of the Bill of Rights online, again searching for the following:
• God
• Creator
• Savior
• Christianity (or Christian or Christ)
• Jesus
• Holy
• Bible
• Church
• Sin

If you’re an American you may be surprised by the results. I was.

The words “God” and “Creator” and “Savior” and “Christianity” and “Christian” and “Christ” and “Jesus” and “Holy” and “Bible” and “Church” and “Sin” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

Nowhere. Not one of them. Not even once.

The words “God” and “Creator” and “Savior” and “Christianity” and “Christian” and “Christ” and “Jesus” and “Holy” and “Bible” and “Church” and “Sin” do not appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

Nowhere. Not one of them. Not even once.

Even “religion” isn’t in the Constitution. The word “religious” occurs exactly once, in Article VI: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Mind you, it says “ever.”

The Bill of Rights does of course have a provision in the First Amendment concerning religion. But note how it uses “religion” as a general term, not as one to single out a specific faith: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

It’s inescapable. In these documents no one religion is identified as having a claim to a privileged status compared to any other religion, of any kind. That is the law of the land, as written by the Founding Fathers.

Huh.

Another amendment has been added since this book was published, but this should be a required read for every American citizen! Not only does it contain the Constitution and the Amendments, but a history and rationale for its development is expertly written. It can be read in one sitting which makes it all the more remarkable.

Beautiful hardcover edition. In my opinion this was (sic! past tense) the most sublime document ever created by human intelligence! America, what have you done to my country and the Constitution?

The USA PATRIOT ACT was signed in October 2001, over eleven years ago now. Soon, the first generation of Americans to grow up without the Constitution will enter high school. I imagine textbooks will need to be re-written, to adjust to their perspective. Some of you out there will probably wonder “Why even bother to teach about the Constitution, now that it’s no longer relevant to American life?”, but I think there is value to talking about this old bygone paper. It was once a big part of our national character and mindset. People even died defending it, back before we collectively shrugged our shoulders when it was discarded one October morning. Looking back, I wonder what would have happened if we would have been more outraged at its passing. I mean, what if angry patriots had taken to the streets? What if there had been a general strike to stop the wheels of commerce until our defining document was restored? It’s one of those great "what if’s" historians will ponder and alt-history novelists will write bad books about in centuries to come, I suppose.



This book not only contains the full text of the U.S. Constitution, it also furnishes beautiful drawings on almost every page, illustrating the principles of the Constitution, and some of the historical persons connected to it.

The U.S. Constitution (September 17, 1787 - October 26, 2001) was one of the most extraordinary documents in history. It extended the notion of personal liberties brought to prominence by the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.), and placed political power in the hands of the governed. Most of it outlines our tripartite Judicial-Legislative-Executive structure of government, which was the framework for American political life in the first 225 years of the Republic. During this period, our constitution was used around the world as a model for numerous other liberal democracies. It is probably too simplistic to say that the Constitutional was swept away and replaced by the Doctrine of the Unitary Executive purely in a fit of post-traumatic national hysteria, following the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. In truth, undeclared wars, Executive signing statements and other anti-Constitutional practices had been signaling the end of the Constitutional Age (C.A.) for decades. The signing of the USA PATRIOT ACT, is merely a convenient place to mark the end of the end of the C.A., but our leaders must have had a sense long before we did that we were no longer interested in living under or defending the Constitution, as it is now known that the USA PATRIOT ACT had been written long before 9/11.

The most remarkable aspect of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, which comprise its first ten amendments. These amendments were submitted by James Madison to the first Congress, and were approved into law in August of 1789. As clarified in the American Declaration of Independence, the liberties protected in the Bill are not created by the Bill, but are endowed by the Divine Creator, and are inalienable from all human beings. The Bill of Rights only represents a legal recognition that these rights exist, and attempts to safeguard them within the structure of the law. The Bill of Rights appears as follows.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the spirit of the old First Amendment:

During the Constitutional Age, American citizens enjoyed the exercise of free speech. Although the judiciary placed some restrictions on this, most notably Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr’s famous "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" opinion (Schenck v. United States in 1919), it seemed to be an easily-understood standard. Under the USA PATRIOT ACT, any speech -even peaceful conflict resolution- could be illegal, if it was with groups or persons on government watch lists. Following passage of the PATRIOT ACT, use of "free speech zones" proliferated in public areas. The Bush II administration also infringed free speech with the issuance of over 30,000 National Securities Letters, most of which were accompanied by gag orders prohibiting the receiver from telling anybody he had received the letter. The full extent of how National Securities Letters are used in the Age of the Unitary Executive is not publicly known, but apparently many have been used to solicit from librarians information about what books citizens read.

This is the spirit of the New First Amendment:

The entire country used to be a “First Amendment Area”.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I know this part will be the most divisive. A lot of people are quite correctly concerned about the role of guns in violent crime. There’s no denying that, and I don’t think every person should have a gun; much the way not every person should have a license to drive. On the other hand, it seems clear that a sufficiently armed citizenry is more secure from governmental abuses. It seems obvious that if the average Cambodian family had firearms in 1974, Pol Pot’s government would have had far less success implementing their program of genocide on the population. This little poster may be trite, but it’s also got an element of truth to it:



So anyway, The Second Amendment had been controversial in America for a long time before 2001. As the nation moved from a sparsely-populated agrarian rural society to a more populous urban industrialized one, gun-related crime increased dramatically. The public came to regard the legal issues surrounding gun ownership to be purely a matter related to domestic crime. The notion of widespread gun ownership as a safeguard against tyranny was gradually forgotten, or came to be thought of as a "fringe" belief. The PATRIOT ACT did not itself eradicate the Second Amendment, but did signal an a tightening of administrative restrictions on gun sales and ammunition production.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The realities of the twenty-first century did not require quartering of the military in private homes, so this right -only because it was so irrelevant- was left unmolested by the USA PATRIOT ACT.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here is the Fourth Amendment at work: a warrant being served.


Here is the Fourth Amendment, as gutted by the USA PATRIOT ACT

Of the entire Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment was probably worst damaged by the USA PATRIOT ACT. As with other rights, safeguards against unreasonable search and seizures began eroding long before 2001, but it was the USA PATRIOT ACT which allowed law enforcement agents to conduct searches without warrants issued by judges, and which specifically allowed evidence obtained contrary to the Fourth Amendment to be nevertheless used in legal proceedings. Section 215 of the PATRIOT ACT contains provisions allowing for "warrantless wiretapping", in which private voice communications can be intercepted, recorded, and used against a citizen without a warrant. The Act's "sneak and peak" provisions allow police and other law agents to search homes without serving warrants, and/or to delay notification of the warrant for 90 days or more after the actual search. In the Age of the Unitary Executive (A.U.E.), an anonymous tip is enough to get a citizen categorized as “suspicious”, which in turn is sufficient cause to trample his rights. The label "Suspicious" in the A.U.E. is akin to the label "witch" in the Middle Ages.

Reference 1
Reference 2
Reference 3
Reference 4



Amendments V and VI go so well together, since they have to do with trials and criminal justice, so I’ll combine them in the discussion here.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Without the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, this could be you:

These are the Amendments which protected citizens from being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law. After the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, it was deemed too risky to let citizens have due process, because then The Terrorists would also get due process. The PATRIOT ACT streamlined law enforcement substantially, allowing the Unitary Executive to forgo the time-consuming bureaucratic steps our Fifth and Sixth Amendments entailed. By merely by designating any citizen as an "enemy combatant" or "suspected terrorist", the Executive could move directly to indefinite detention, questioning without defense council present, or filing of charges.



No guidance or restrictions are in place to specify who can be designated as "suspicious", and there is no oversight for how the Executive chooses to use this power. (that’s why he’s the “Unitary Executive”). Evidence obtained by coercion, or torture is admissible in trials against suspect citizens, who may not excercise the right to attorney-client privilege. This streamlined process is great for catching The Terrorists, yet even today the idea that anyone may legally be locked away forever with no trial, even with no suspicion of wrongdoing, and no chance to clear his name, merely at the President's whim, doesn’t sit well with some people, who would like to go back to the dangerous old Constitutional system. Unfortunately, that outmoded document doesn’t recognize the realities of the twenty-first century- namely that if Americans want to preserve our freedoms from The Terrorists who would destroy us, "due process" is simply a luxury we can no longer afford. The USA PATRIOT ACT was just the first of many laws stripping away the old system of due process. Certainly Section 1031 of the 2012 National Defense Appropriations Act (NDAA) also went a long way in clarifying that U.S. citizens no longer enjoyed due process as it existed under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Reference 5

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I am not aware of any examples in which the USA PATRIOT ACT or other legislation in the A.U.E. has abridged the Seventh Amendment, but if you have any, please comment on this review’s thread. I’d be interested to hear about it.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Now this will be an interesting discussion. I don’t honestly know how waterboarding fits into this discussion, because the Eighth Amendment addresses punishment, which seems to imply something which follows a trial and conviction. Waterboarding, while certainly cruel and unusual, is a technique used to gather information from suspects, not convicts. Of course in an age where being a suspect is enough to get you a life prison sentence, fussing over the difference between suspects and convicts really seems like hair-splitting, doesn't it? Under the Unitary Executive, being a suspect is effectively a punishable crime. There is not presumption of innocence, which leads us to Amendment #9...

Who says there’s been a militarization of our culture?




Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Ninth Amendment was supposed to clarify that the Bill of Rights was not intended to be a complete list of citizens’ rights. Just because something isn’t in the Bill of Rights, doesn’t mean it isn’t a right. Take the presumption of innocence, for example. It isn’t specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but it was a foundational principle in American law during the Constitutional Age. Obviously involuntary detention based on suspicion runs counter to the idea of a presumption of innocence, so the 2012 NDAA represents a violation of the Ninth Amendment. Hope you don’t miss it too much. I think the Unitary Executive would tell you that if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you don’t need a presumption of innocence; only terrorists need a presumption of innocence.



Reference 6

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Even though we are barely a decade into the A.U.E., there have already been some bold legislative proposals to keep us all safe from The Terrorists. One of the more controversial ones has been the REAL ID ACT. This was to be a federal law mandating standardization of state drivers’ licenses throughout the nation, effectively creating a sort of "national I.D. card", which would supposedly be more difficult for The Terrorists to copy. The thing is, the federal government isn’t supposed to get into the states’ business over stuff like this, and if you read this link, or this one, or maybe this one, you can begin to see why people in different states might want to keep their own local laws, and not have federal standards forced on them.

This is a great copy that has both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. I believe it is something each U.S. citizen should have in their library for reference purposes. This version is nicely laid out and inexpensive.

It's the Consitution - so, I'm not going to review "the book." My review focuses on the $500 retail deluxe illustrated edition. I received this book a few days ago, and it is absolutley stunning! First, it is HUGE: 23.5" by 16" by 2". I have uploaded photos, which include a regular size hardcover book for size comparison. Second, the Constitution is unbound. The document is broken into sections and amendments, with one or two sections, or one amendment, per page. Each one is written out in large font, calligraphy-style script, and embellished with colorful artwork. It is printed on archival, very thick high, quality paper (looks a bit like parchment/vellum). Each sheet is like an artprint, and would be suitable for framing. These are inset in a dark blue cloth covered traycase, with satin ribbon for easy removal. Under the traycase lid is an included limited edition art-print, signed by the artist. My included print has the entire Constitution written out in a smaller font, in non-linear style, with an American Eagle embellishing the page.

Overall, this truly is a work of art! If I had the space, I would love to frame each print and display them in sequence on a wall. Highly recommended to book collectors, or Americana collectors.