Reddit mentions: The best constitutional law books

Sure, wikipedia gives you a great summary of how the Constitution works, but here's a crib sheet.

The Constitution establishes the U.S. federal government and describes its powers. Remember that the U.S. federal government has three branches. The first three articles of the Constitution describe the powers and responsibilities of each branch of government.

• Article I concerns the Legislature (Congress). Congress is supposed to have only those powers specifically enumerated in Article I. In practice, certain clauses have been read broadly and Congress today can pass virtually any law that impacts interstate commerce. Congress is a "bi-cameral" legislature meaning that it has two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate.
  
  
• Article II describes powers of the Executive Branch (the President). The President is the Head of State and the Commander in Chief of the military. He can veto laws passed by Congress. He can appoint ambassadors, judges, and cabinet members (equivalent of ministers in other systems) with the "advice and consent" of the U.S. Senate.
  
  
• Article III establishes the federal judiciary.
  
  The first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. Notable amendments are: the First Amendment (freedom of speech, press, religion), the Fifth Amendment (right to remain silent), the Sixth Amendment (right to confront witnesses). These amendments originally only applied to the Federal government but over time they were "incorporated" to the states, meaning that they apply to state laws.
  
  Other important amendments include: the Thirteenth Amendment (abolishment of slavery), the Fourteenth Amendment (due process of law, equal protection clause), the Seventeenth Amendment (direct election of Senators), the Nineteenth Amendment (women's suffrage), and my favorite, the Twenty-First Amendment (end of the Prohibition!).
  
  EDIT: To answer your other questions. I don't know the answers to all your questions so I'll only address some.
  
  Question 1: Article 1, Section 8 describe powers that Congress may exercise. They are certainly not required to do so. For instance, Congress has the power to "raise and support Armies" which means they can fund armies. But they can also decline to fund certain military projects or (maybe) missions.
  
  Question 3: I am not familiar with the legal doctrine you raised, but the answer to whether the federal judiciary can make law is... complicated. Most of the judiciary's work is interpreting statutes and constitutional provisions. However, Congress can certainly overturn a judicial interpretation of a statute by passing another law. Similarly, constitutional amendments can overturn judicial decisions. This has happened several times in U.S. history. For instance, the Dred Scott case (holding that descendents of slaves are not U.S. citizens) was overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the United States. Remember that the Constitution is the "highest law of the land" and supersedes any conflicting state or federal law, or judicial opinions.
  
  On occasions Congress has left certain bodies of law to be developed by the courts, to in effect create a common law binding on those topics. The best example of this is antitrust law in the United States. Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits agreements and conspiracies "in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States." The huge body of antitrust law was developed almost entirely by the courts over the last one hundred years. Most observers would say that courts have been busy creating new law of antitrust under the umbrella of the Sherman Act.
  
  As for precedent, you have to keep in mind that the federal judiciary has three levels: district courts where cases are first brought (this is where trials happen), Courts of Appeals that hear challenges to the district court decisions, and the Supreme Court which is the highest court. Decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on the lower courts. The Supreme Court is not bound by its prior decisions, but there is a principle of stare decisis which means the Supreme Court will not lightly overturn its prior decisions.
  
  Question 4: The republican form of government mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean the same thing as the Republican Party today. This clause hasn't been interpreted very often, but it probably prohibits a state from becoming a monarchy, a theocracy, or a dictatorship.
  
  Question 5: For freedom of press, you'll have to read the key Supreme Court topics on it. I suggest New York Times Co. v. United States as a starting point.
  
  Question 6: The Patriot Act is a controversial topic. I suggest you read Rethinking the Patriot Act, written by a NYU law professor, which describes and analyzes the law's key elements. Maybe you can get this through your local library?
  
  Question 7: The Tenth Amendment is an interesting case. Here's an important distinction to keep in mind. States have general police powers which means they can pass laws to regulate health, morals, and safety. They can pass any law as long as it doesn't conflict with federal law, state constitution, or the U.S. Constitution. By contrast, the federal government is one of enumerated powers which means it only has powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The U.S. federal system arose from a very unique historical context. The States pre-date the United States, and in the early days of the nation, there was much fierce debate about the proper scope of the federal government. Most states simply did not want a strong federal government and feared that the government created by the Constitution would, over time, usurp the powers of individual states and intrude upon areas traditionally left to state governance. The Tenth Amendment was created to reassure the States that they would not lose all their powers. The Tenth Amendment does not authorize the States to pass their own laws - they already had that power.
  
  States can also pass laws that run parallel to or overlap with federal laws. Let's go back to antitrust. The Sherman Act is a federal antitrust law. But many states have their own antitrust laws that are often more expansive than the federal law. This is fine under the U.S. federal system. But states cannot pass laws that conflict with federal law and they cannot pass laws in fields that have been preempted by federal law. Preemption is a complex issue, but just know that there are certain fields of law that only the federal government can regulate: immigration and patents, for example.
  
  Question 8: You are referring to article 36 of the SA constitution? Subsection (a) seems to say that limitations of rights have to be reasonable in light of certain considerations. The Constitution does not contain such a clause, and in fact, the Bill of Rights often uses categorical language ("Congress shall pass no law..."). But over time the Supreme Court has developed several tests to judge the legality of laws that restrict basic freedoms. For instance, courts use the strict scrutiny to determine whether restrictions on certain fundamental rights pass constitutional scrutiny.
  
  Hope this helps!

>A constitution prevents certan laws from being written and invalidates certain laws (generally very new ones, the first time their application is appealed up to the highest court). What it does not do is induce the passing of new laws.

I gave you an example with Canada where the SCC compelled parliament to write new legislation concerning assisted suicide. They also compelled government to write legislation concerning prostitution. Governing from the Bench is an academic book by professor Emmett Macfarlane about the role that the SCC and the courts in general play in legislation and governance in Canada.

Beyond that, norms can be a prohibition on certain actions or behaviors. Striking down legal restrictions in line with social norms is just as much changing a law as writing new legislation.

>Laws are written by elected representatives, those elected because they reflect the norms of the country. The intention is that any law passed reflects the norms of that country.

That's certainly the idea in theory, but it doesn't always work out like that. Access to political institutions and representatives is a huge and often forgotten factor. A 10 year study by two political scientists found that upwards of 90% of new legislation in municipal, state, and federal legislative bodies benefited those in the top 10% of wealth, providing some evidence for a theory in political science and sociology known as elite theory. Elite theory holds that pluralistic democracy is either a utopian folly or can't be realized within a capitalist system where those in positions of economic privilege and power can exert a large amount of control over the legislative and policy decisions of governments.

But even if you reject that wholesale, depending on the political structure that's being dealt with. For example, Canada has a parliamentary political system with three major parties. A minority government may very well compromise with the third place party and present and pass legislation against certain social norms in order to ensure that third party's vote. Or the opposite might happen. In Canada a majority government may only have a plurality of the popular vote but a majority of the seats in the HoC. That means that they are able to pass legislation unopposed (due to strong party loyalty) that could very well be against collective beliefs and values of a majority of the populace.

There are more ways than that. Access to representatives and political institutions can be exceptionally useful for unpopular legislative changes, which can be done through lobbying. The role of funding and campaign financing has the potential to present a conflict of interest for politicians. The list goes on and on.

>A constitution is a force against change. It might prevent a law being written despite being reflective of the country's norms but it cannot create a law that contradicts them.

But it is changing the law, which is what this whole debate has been about. It's not just about writing laws, it's about changing them.

>The rarity of referendums and (in some places) requirement for more than a simple majority are further forces against change. They mean that norms must swing even further before certain aspects of the law will change.

But referendums aren't the norm for most legislative, legal, and political issues. Pointing to the fact that they exist does not in any way undermine or rebut anything that I've said at all.

I can think of a few

• Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" - WHY and how whole empires fall
  
  
• Niall Ferguson's "The Ascent of Money" - How money rules the world - here's how.
  
  
• Jarred Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" - his thesis might not be entirely correct - but it's a VERY fair look at how our history was influenced by these factors.
  
  
• Bruce Bueno De Mesquita's - "The Predictioneer's Game" - - How quantitative models are SCARILY accurate
  
  
• Emanuel Derman's "Models Behaving Badly" - And how sometimes quantitative models are totally wrong.
  
  
• Paul Roberts - "The End of Oil" - Probably the most serious and balanced read on what could be one of the most important economic problems facing our modern civilization in the next 20 years.
  
  
• Frank & Cook's "Winner Take All Society" - and why things are a problem.
  
  
• Richard Florida's "The Great Reset" - Florida is a pretty good author all around - far better than some others in the pitch.
  
  
• James Bamford's amazing "Body of Secrets" - Not all our enemies are external, and sometimes our allies turn out to actually be thuggish & deadly enemies.
  
  
• Iris Chang's "The Rape of Nanking" - Nobody here is exactly as they appear.
  
  
• Carl Sagan's "A Demon Haunted World"
  
  
• Robin Marantz Henig's "A Monk in the Garden" - Yeah - the priest that proved Darwin's theory, in 1865.....oh yeah and he invented statistics along the way.
  
  
• Brian Sykes' "The seven Daughters of Eve"
  
  
• Douglas Hofstadter's "Metamagical Themas" - Every page is practically amazing - a collection of amazing old articles from Dr. H's work
  
  
• Kristina Borjesson's edit of "Into the Buzzsaw" - the hard truth about a couple of things in the US media
  
  
• Richard Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" - a great work about such an amazing idea.
  
  
• Kim Sterelny's "Dawkins vs. Gould" - this is a REAL debate about evolution!
  

Where I live, it's basically standard homeowner equipment, as common as owning a socket wrench set.

When you live in a rural area within the United States, you're going to encounter wildlife. Nine times out of ten, wildlife is harmless and leaves you and your property alone. But not always. In those instances, you can deploy all kinds of deterrents, but there are always a few rare critters that are far more determined than their brethren - and at that point, you need an effective (and ethical) means of dispatching them.

Then there's always the possibility of aggressive critters of the two-legged variety.

In either case, the biggest factor is this: Help is NOT just around the corner. The old cliche "when seconds count, help is minutes away" is 100% reality out here. Oh, and help isn't just minutes away, it's many minutes away. Double digits, at the quickest. Maybe even an hour or more, depending on conditions. You are effectively on your own.

Basically, the best quote I've ever heard about firearms comes from a local Missouri lawyer and advocate, who literally wrote the book on Missouri self defense law, and actually helped write the laws we have.

To paraphrase: "You may never need a gun. But, when you need it, you really need it, and you need it right now."

Bonus Question: No. If people are carrying properly, in accordance with what is considered best and prudent practices, I should never know.

while i always had libertarian views, i never really knew (or cared) where i fit politically. i became truely interested in politics in '11-'12. i was fed up with bush and i was fed up with obama. i watched the debates (both sides) and heard about Ron "Dr. No" Paul for the first time. this dude was actually making sense to me. he even made me think about a few issues in new ways. from there i learned about Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, and the very first piece of "libertarian" literature i ever read was Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws by him. i always had a general skepticism of government interference, but that book...well it scared the shit out of me. i immediately bought It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom by Judge Napolitano, and since then i was hooked. i read everything i could get my hands on, and watched every youtube video tagged "libertarian". i eventually (shortly) found my way to the economic side as well. i have been reading, watching, and debating ever since.

for your friends introduction, you should first identify his chief concerns. is it scepticism in gov? civil liberties? economic? thats where you should start. i gave you a couple of books on law, but this site may be of interest to you as well. let us know what specifically you want to touch on and im sure we can better assist you.

and speaking of law, Frédéric Bastiat's "The Law" is also a good short read. you can find a free pdf through google search. he has many other good works as well. "The Candlemaker's Petition" is probably my favorite.

No, they absolutely don't. They *pretend* to care about precedent, but they overturn things all the time based on ideological beliefs and often rule against their own precedent, at least on important, ideologically divisive matters.

And that boils down to, as Eric Segall used for the title of a very good introduction book on the subject (though not the only one), that SCOTUS is not a court. It's a tribe of elders imposing value judgements when the Constitution has, by definition, no actual answers for the problems at hand (see: affirmative action, abortion, gun rights, etc.)

That's why a decision about, for example, if the printed currency of the United States is valid currency can be overruled within a year because one SCOTUS judge changed. Or why Scalia could overrule 200 years of precedent and declare in 2008 that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, even though we had clear, settled law that always declared that it was a collective one.

The way that they justify these decisions comes from different systems of value applications (living constitutionalism, one of the many different kinds of originalism, etc.) but it's all values, even if they like to pretend otherwise.

In fact, that the American public continues to perceive that SCOTUS IS a court and that it does care about precedence in contentious cases is one of the biggest cons of the American education system. And it's what keeps people from believing that the SCOTUS would ever overturn Roe because it's settled law, for instance, but the reality is they will overturn Roe in a heartbeat if Roberts decides it's OK politically.

SCOTUS is politics wherever the answers are not obvious.

I mean I think TECHNICALLY, you are wrong (Im gonna say this even though it is a premise, lol) Because I think the thing called "Operation Mockingbird" ended, and was repackaged under some other name and continued ever since.

This is actually one of my favorite things to bring up to people. Because I show them the video of the CIA testifying in front of congress, and I explain they had journalists working with the CIA to make news stories. Then I tell them in a sarcastic way that the program ended and ever since then the CIA has never manipulated the news in anyway. Presented like this, I have never come across someone who will say they dont think the CIA has not interfered since.

Its great, because it's a super effective way to get people thinking more about the news.

After that, i show them some other links like:

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

CNNs "Courageous" Advertorial Mill.

Alwaleed is a Saudi who partially owns/owned FOX. Does he believe he helps control the message? Yes he does:
>http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/is-saudi-prince-steering-news-corp-coverage/
Alwaleed said he got the Fox News crawl reporting “Muslim riots” in France changed to “civil riots.” This didn’t make the “Muslim” riots go away, but Alwaleed managed to fog our perception of them.. with a phone call.
One powerful dude makes a phone call and "fogs perception". That's REAL world persuasion. And it's admitted. No conspiracy. Now the FACT that he can do it and brag about it PROVES how malleable the news is. He's just a 5% owner. Rupert Murdock can say the sky is Magenta and they'll color correct the sky to magenta. Or they will lose their posh job. What would you do?

George Bush Admits the News are Using Fake Stories

Micheal Hastings (The one redeeming quality about BuzzFeed until his murder) on the CIA and propaganda


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1072763

Media giant Clear Channel sponsored pro-war rallies.

Embedded Reporting


NY article about "should the newspaper fact check and call politicians on lies or not?" You definitely want to read it, then scroll to the comments section and see all the people pissed off at the NYT. BTW this article is by the Public Editor, not just some random write in opinion or something.


How the Media Manipulates the World into War

http://www.tranquilitylane.com/ Is a website "Dedicated to those who gave their life speaking truth to power" - That first image on the page is interactive. Clock the arrows to move through the people who were killed for speaking out.

---------------------------------
Some relevant quotes:


If we had met five years ago, you wouldn't have found a more staunch defender of the newspaper industry than me ... And then I wrote some stories that made me realize how sadly misplaced my bliss had been. The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job ... The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress ...
— ^Gary ^Webb

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level."
--William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

"The Agency's relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy ... to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible."
--The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

“For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government…. I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.”
–former President Harry Truman, 22 December 1963, one month after the JFK assassination, op-ed section of the Washington Post, early edition

Read "Into The Buzzsaw: LEADING JOURNALISTS EXPOSE THE MYTH OF A FREE PRESS". It's written by award winning journalists. These journalists have all had major story shut down by Corporate or Gov't pressure. Most were fired.
http://www.amazon.com/Into-Buzzsaw-LEADING-JOURNALISTS-EXPOSE/dp/1591022304

I totally concur with OP, supplements are supplements, not replacements. Read the case book, then read the relevant chapter from the supplement to ensure you got everything you were supposed to get out of it. Once you are getting everything out of the casebook in the first pass, you can discard supplements entirely if you like.

Best supplements, in my opinion:

• Introduction to Civil Procedure by Richard Freer
  
  
• Understanding Contracts by Richard Ferriell
  
  
• Understanding Property by John Sprankling
  
  
• Constitutional Law by Erwin Chemerinsky
  
  
• Understanding Criminal Law by Joshua Dressler
  
  
• E&E for Torts
  
  You can quibble on some, but any law student worth his salt will recognize Dressler on crim and Chemerinsky on con law as the best. Freer on Civ Pro is very well recognized as well. I like the Understanding series for contracts and property because they are still succinct yet more in-depth than the E&E's. I like the E&E for torts because the Understanding book for that class isn't especially good.
  
  If you don't like any of the above, the respective E&E would be my second choice.

>Because unfortunately, conservative values build nations and liberal values tear them down

Give us one example, please.

> The job of the government is recorded in the Constitution.

Yes, but as Scalia wrote in his book, it's a matter of interpretation. It's a very informative book. I recommend you read it.

> Both sides have an agenda and that agenda is to inflate the well being of their supporters so that those supporters will continue to put them in power.

I agree. Who are the supporters and how do we take them down? Trump has made them all members of his cabinet.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here. Yes, we ALL have the ability to assess what "essential" and "temporary" mean, but you are simply mistaken that vox populi isn't the final arbiter...

Your strained analogy "the 'essential' liberty of keeping as much money as possible" versus "the 'temporary' safety of health care or food stamps..." is, quite simply, ridiculous. Ever heard of the tax code? People who don't pay their taxes are dealt with pretty harshly (unless they're nominated to run the Treasury Department, I guess). But these kinds of false dichotomies make me ill. If you're not happy with the level of funding for food stamps or Medicaid, please stop blaming people who want to keep as much of their own money as the law allows. Hold the legislators who set those rates and appropriate the money for social programs accountable for the choices they make. But please stop pretending that the reason the monthly allowance under [SNAP] (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap) isn't higher than it is is because people are greedy and heartless...

I agree that it is best to discuss issues directly, but that does not mean we can't find value in wise words from the past (provided the quote is accurate). I revisit such works as [The Federalist Papers] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Federalist-Papers-ebook/dp/B004TPP976/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_kin?ie=UTF8&qid=1372066721&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Federalist) and Tocqueville's [Democracy in America] (http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-America-1-ebook/dp/B0082ZJMPY/ref=sr_1_2_bnp_1_kin?ie=UTF8&qid=1372066657&sr=8-2&keywords=democracy+in+america) quite often, and find them a great aid to clarity of thought on contemporary political issues...

> It's a lot easier to reverse foreign policy than it is to overturn Supreme Court precedence.

I disagree here. We already have a pro-war culture here and I worry about what four more years of damage will do. Eight years of Bush basically numbed our country's reaction to Al-Awlaki's assassination. You talk about Paul packing the bench with justices who would erode the 14th Amendment, but if Obama were re-elected, I'd be equally worried for the future of other, equally important constutional protections.

On the flipside, even if Paul were to get two justices on the bench (Breyer looks healthy and happy with his job, so I doubt it would be three), that doesn't automatically equate to decades of civil rights erosion. Paul is a libertarian, but he has to "play the part" a bit with the abortion rights question with his "leave it up to the states" line. While that may be what Paul personally believes, I really don't see that as a priority for him, as well as I really don't think he would put two Clarence Thomases on the bench.

But even if he did, that doesn't guarantee "a dilution of our constitutional protections stretching on for decades." I think you're overstating things here. Two justices does not a quorum make. And furthermore, you can't just assume that the mindset of these hypothetical appointees will be steadfast for the foreseeable 40 years. Culture changes, society changes, and the minds of Supreme Court justices change, as their lifetime tenure frees them from most political pressures. Look at John Paul Stevens, for example, who had a fairly conservative voting record in federal court before becoming one of the most liberal Justices of all time. Here's a great read with regards to this argument.

I never intended to say that people shouldnt learn any other language than their mother tongue. Studying other cultures is necessary these days. But refusing to learn the local language and demanding that everybody else should accomodate them, is a colonial attitude and not an Indian one. As such, it is very ugly to see Hindi speakers display such attitudes when they go into a non-Hindi speaking region.

One should also realise that throughout history, no two languages have coexisted peacefully without one trying to dominate the other. In such a scenario, the language which has official sanction tends to wipe out the local one, as is the case of Britain and France which transitioned from multicultural to monocultural nations over the past 200 yrs. They werent born monocultural but became one, after the govt. decided that one language (the language of the majority) will be spoken by all. I do not want India to become like these countries. Also, as the example of Pakistan and Soviet Union have shown, getting everybody to speak a language for the benefit of the politically powerful, doesnt unify them in anyway but breaks up the country.

Secondly, you are confusing "official language" (meant for bureaucrats) with "national language" (meant for citizens). Something most Indians (esp. Northeners) are prone to do given the prevalance of the "Hindi Rashtra" myth.

I never read the source for that wikipedia quote, so I dont know if the source actually says so, but this is my source.

The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of A Nation

The author Granville Austin, was physically present during the Constitutional debates and was awarded a Padma Sri for his two books on the Indian Constitution. His work has also been quoted in Supreme Court judgements on Constitutional matters, in determination of our Founders intent.

The language question generated the longest debate and is the largest chapter in his book.

Quoting directly

>The Hindi-wallahs were ready to risk splitting the Assembly and the country in their unreasoning pursuit of uniformity. They thus denied the Assembly's belief in the concept of accommodation and in decision-making by consensus. The Assembly members preferred to take decision by consensus or by as near to unanimity as possible. Not only was this method deeply embedded in the Indian tradition, it was manifestly the most practical way to frame the Constitution. A system of governance would not work effectively, Assembly members knew, if large segments of the population were opposed to it. Every attempt had to be made, therefore, to achieve the broadest possible agreement. The Hindi-wallahs, however, announced that they would impose Hindi on the country if they had a one-vote majority. To prevent this, the moderates went to great lengths to find a compromise. They ultimately acquiesced in the language provisions, although they were not happy with them, in the hope that they would provide a framework within which an amicable settlement would be reached. The moderates' fears that the extremists had not accepted the provisions in the spirit of consensus have, unfortunately, been borne out. Since 1950 the extremists have continued to scorn the spirit and have pursued their original aims on the basis of the letter of the Constitution, ignoring the intention of the compromise, which was to resolve the language issue without unduly harming the interests of any linguistic group.

Hindi speakers didnt give two hoots abt Indian unity and merely wanted to create their own "linguistic Rashtra", unlike every other cultural group who wanted a multicultural India where all languages are treated equally, without preference being shown to any language. But to keep the Hindi heartland within India, a compromise was made (as noted in your source) and Hindi was given official language status as a sop, alongside English.

There never was any requirement for Indians to learn Hindi because it is our "national language" or "official language" or "lingua franca" or whatever nonsense.

From an undergrad point of view - you probably learned the abc's of those areas of law. First Am and IP are enormous and cover more than just contracts and property. So, remember the small amount of stuff you learned as an interesting perspective, but keep a very open mind when you take con law and property. Book mark this post, and come back later to have a fun reality check.

I would recommend having lots of fun before you start, but if you want a cursory knowledge of con law (the cocktail party subject!) read this cover to cover. Do not study it. Just read it. It'll give you a good overview for conversation and then you can begin the arduous task of attempting to match your professor's view of the law 1:1.

For information about government institutions:

Protecting Canadian Democracy: the Senate You Never Knew---a compilation of papers on the Senate, on upper houses in general, and on Senate reform. Put together by Senator Serge Joyal.

Governing from the Bench: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Role---by Emmett MacFarlane, a very good analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada and its role in modern lawmaking.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice---also known as O'Brien & Bosc after its editors, the House of Commons procedural reference manual and roughly the Canadian equivalent of the seminal Erskine May. The manual includes a comprehensive coverage of the institutions of government, especially as they relate to Parliament and lawmaking, and good coverage of parliamentary privilege. Don't dismiss it out of hand for being a procedural manual; the parts on the structure of the government are surprisingly accessible.

i kinda think you should read them first and then ask more specific questions. the federalist papers are, to me, a better reflection of classical liberalism than they are of conservatism, although the system they created does make the creation of legislation difficult, which, although not an endorsement of conservatism, does support conservative's desire to preserve cultural institutions.

i will grant that there is more conservatism in the federalist papers than in the anti-federalist papers (i recommend reading them along side the federalist papers to get an idea of the debate that was taking place).

i wouldn't say there is such a thing as an anti-federalist ideology. the anti-federalists were not an organized group. they were people in each state who opposed the constitution for different reasons. sometimes it was because the protections in their state constitutions were better than those in the US constitution (which, at the time it was ratified, did not yet include the bill of rights). to me, the anti-federalists, in a broad sense, are very classically liberal and opposed to the threat of centralized power that a federal government brings. to an extent, they were correct. on the other hand, i find the arguments advanced in the federalist papers compelling and ultimately had to agree that the constitutional federal government was preferable over the articles of confederation.

The Five Types of Legal Argument is a good primer on what types of arguments are used in the courts that generate case law. Chemerinsky's Constitutional Law is an excellent resource for constitutional law, which is some of the more interesting stuff. The Nine is an easy read and a good introduction to the personalities and major decisions of the Rehnquist court and early Roberts court. Dressler's Understanding Criminal Law is another good one; it explains the general architecture of criminal law and its development. Those might be available at libraries near you. If there's a law library in your area, you can always grab a legal encyclopedia (like American Jurisprudence 2d. or Corpus Juris Secondum) and a Black's Law Dictionary and flip around until you find something interesting. And as others have mentioned, BarBri is a good resource.

Law 101 by Jay Feinman is pretty good.

Making Our Democracy Work by Justice Breyer is a pretty good overview of constitutional law.

See if your law school offers intro to law courses for undergrads. Mine did and it helped a great deal at piquing my interest in law.

Beyond that, I'd read some books about SCOTUS (G. Toobin's "The Nine" is a good, easy read).

If you want to dig into actual con law without reading yourself into a coma, try Con Law: Principles and Policies by Erwin Chemorinsky (http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Introduction/dp/073555787X)

It was, and is, the Con Law bible for law students. It's heavy on legal concepts but its written well enough that its readable by anyone. I have my copy sitting right next to me on my desk right now. I can't tell you how good this book is for constitutional law 101 type information.

"Making Our Democracy Work" by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is a pretty good laymens description of constitutional law.

>That is, I don't plan on practicing law, but rather I'd look to study civil rights law and constitutional history so as to improve my prospects as a professor of political theory

Go buy this book, read it cover to cover, and save yourself the 150k of debt you'd need to go into just to take a semester/year long class in Con law.

Getting a JD will do nothing at all for your career prospects after your PhD unless you want to become an actual attorney.

Imagining you don't have time to read full books amidst your other 1L reading, try Wikipedia (seriously). Obviously, be wary of the source, but for an article as researched and clicked-on as the "United States Constitution," you'd be hard-pressed to find any fundamental errors.

Also try Wikipedia pages like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1776–89)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1789–1849)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Also, most, if not all, of the cases you will read in ConLaw will have Wikipedia pages, since we are talking about some of the landmark cases of all time. Most of the pages are well-researched, and it is usually easy to tell when they are not (by lack of citation, grammatical/spelling errors, etc). Before reading a case, go to Wikipedia to get background information that will put everything in context. It will make the cases easier to remember, they will make more sense from a legal standpoint, and you will know more than most of your classmates. (But I am a history buff, so maybe other people don't care).

For a supplement, I cannot recommend Chemerinsky's "Principles and Policies" enough. It will be invaluable throughout law school and beyond. At over 1400 pages, it is not meant to be a beginning-to-end page turner, but rather is an immensely helpful resource on individual topics as you go along.

I had to pay $200,000 for my law degree. Not educating you for free. If you're honestly interested in con law, here is a good starting point. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0735598975?pc_redir=1396454528&robot_redir=1

I can't believe what I'm seeing here. This is actually advocated by Mark Levin and covered in chapter 4 of his book, "The Liberty Amendments." He also calls for a super-majority legislative override of supreme court decisions.

I completely agree even though I know our motives would not line up at all.

1. Don't go to law school.
   
   
2. If you insist, anything by Chemerinsky is good for an overview of constitutional law. Dworkin is also interesting and pretty accessible. For an overview of the types of theory you'll learn in torts, check out Coase's The Nature of the Firm (pdf).

Yes, and I was responding to your idiotic post--the fact that I replied to it should have clued you in to the fact. I know the internet can be confusing and scary, but do try to keep up.

You're as good at basic logic as you are historical analysis, and as good at that as you are competent in constitutional law, which is to say not at all.

In fact, in general, [this might help] (https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=S176159B2ZPNW43TYMT2), although on second thought [this] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag) might be more on your level.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1454849479/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile

Not for lawyers, but for law students. So it's perfect for self learning. Chemerinsky is considered a top con law scholar.

Maybe not what you asked for, but this is basically a must-read (IMO) for anyone interested in constitutional law. You can also reference the typical supplements that law students use. They are much easier than a casebook.

Nutshell

Crunchtime

http://law.lclark.edu/courses/catalog/law_007.php

Please note that this is not the school I attended. I have no desire to post that information. I cannot condense three years of information, or even two semesters of Con Law into a citation for you. It is not possible. Books are available on this topic. Large ones with all the illuminating case cites you desire.

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422199742&sr=1-1&pebp=1422199756757&peasin=735598975 Chemerinsky is always a good choice.

Levin's amendments include:

1. Term limits, including for justices.
   
2. Repealing Amendment 17 and returning the election of senators to state legislatures
   
3. A congressional super-majority to override Supreme Court decisions (overruling what could be a stacked court)
   
4. Spending limit based on GDP
   
5. Taxation capped at 15%
   
6. Limiting the commerce clause, and strengthening private property rights
   
7. Power of states to override a federal statute by a three-fifths vote.
   
   
   
   
   http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273
   

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1527540913&sr=1-1&keywords=chemerinsky+constitutional+law

The Chemerinsky is excellent and very readable. Highly recommend.

Do you have a particular area of policy you’re interested in? I remember enjoying Death by a Thousand Cuts (about the estate tax) and Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America when I read them in grad school.

What sort of policy do you want to read about? Or are you more interested in the policy process overall?

If you want a quick and small guide to the Constitution besides the original text itself, I would highly recommend this:

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Nutshell-Nutshells-Jerome-Barron/dp/1634596234/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=constitutional+law+in+a+nutshell&qid=1550539091&s=gateway&sr=8-2

The book is an objective overview of Constitutional law, and will give you a solid grasp on where Constitutional interpretation currently stands by running you through all of the landmark cases that have shaped the law in the US.

I see GMO labeling as in the same category standardizing weights and measures, public libraries, laws against fraud. I'd rather that the state cease to function and has nothing to do with these things, but eliminating them before that isn't a priority.

Our food supply is not a free market. The vast majority of food commonly available makes me feel like shit, and I don't want my ability to obtain untainted food to be further restricted. GMO is a taint being spread to essentially anything that contains staple crops.

If you aren't concerned about GMO's, start by looking up the Seralini studies, and look into the lengths that Monsanto and the US state department go to in order to spread the taint to other countries. Another factor you may not be aware of is the damage to the intestinal lining caused by the typical modern diet, allowing all sorts of odd foreign proteins to make it into the blood. Ingesting large amounts of microbial proteins that would not have been present otherwise doesn't seem like a good idea. These things have made me decided to eliminate them from my diet for the time being, and I would like to be able to make that choice.

That GMO monoculture is more efficient or that "organic can't feed the world" is a simple lie. Organic produce only seems expensive because it's sold at specialty stores that charge a high premium, and because only a very small proportion of agriculture (less than 5% I believe) is organic. The modifications being made are typically for things like resistance to toxic herbicides made by the same companies that sell the GMO's (Glyphosate is especially insidious, as it diffuses throughout plant tissue and can't be washed off), or controlling the food supply through crops that produce no seeds and can't be replanted.

GMO cross-contamination through pollination is a private property issue, as would be a factory next door to you blowing toxic fumes.

GMO's are not equivalent to breeding (though breeding is entirely capable of producing toxic foods, certain grains and fructose-laden fruits being examples). Evolution, even human-directed evolution, has constraints. There are traits that it is not possible to breed for, genes that would never exist in a plant absent manual copying and pasting from unrelated organisms.

The arguments for GMO's I see being made in this thread reveal a lot of the standard flaws with libertarian thinking.

The first is the reflexive defense of economic/corporate activity in our society, as though it were a free market. It isn't. All market activity is currently tainted by massive coercion at every level, but especially where large firms and captured regulatory agencies are involved.

Another is naive scientism/technophilia. Industrialization and technology has rather obviously allowed states to grow far beyond the limits of size, reach, and power that constrained them in centuries past. You live in a time when states have the ability to extend force completely to their borders as drawn on maps, where there are almost no wild areas left to run to when they become overbearing. When states have powers of surveillance approaching totality. When states have the capability to render the planet uninhabitable.

It makes very little sense for anarchists in this time to be indiscriminate technophiles. Taking a step back and looking at the an-cap movement, it arose and still largely exists as a heretical movement within a particular highly industrialized and technological nation-state (the U.S.). It's still largely a byproduct of that state. Hence you see a vision of anarchy that assumes compatibility with all kinds of hierarchy, and features familiar scenes from that empire built on a particular historically unprecedented mix of statism, technology and cheap oil.

If your vision of anarchy includes things like globalism, large firms, dense populations, heavy industry, and suburbs complete with shopping malls and "private" police, you should probably spend a little more couch time. Stop being such a fucking American. The 90's aren't coming back. Perhaps this is more the kind of "reform" that would be palatable to you. http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273

Not an outline, but everyone always recommends this supplement for con law:
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373125911&sr=8-1&keywords=chemerinsky+constitutional+law

So if you have the time... it's pretty much a textbook.

But if you don't, my friend used this for Con Law I and got an A+ http://www.amazon.com/Emanuel-Law-Outlines-Constitutional-30th/dp/1454809132/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373125956&sr=1-1&keywords=emanuel+con+law

I have been meaning to read these 2 books on Indian constitution by Austin Granville, based on a recommendation from someone whom I immensely respect. Just putting it out here, if anyone is interested.

https://www.amazon.in/Indian-Constitution-Cornerstone-Classic-Reissue/dp/0195649591

https://www.amazon.in/dp/0195656105/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=cd818f9c-142a-4b42-ad2c-f0421857aaf5&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0195649591&pf_rd_m=A1VBAL9TL5WCBF&pf_rd_r=4M06M7MV874QAVFA2A0V&pf_rd_r=4M06M7MV874QAVFA2A0V&pf_rd_p=cd818f9c-142a-4b42-ad2c-f0421857aaf5

More information about the author of these books, https://soundcloud.com/vclp/150722-003mp3

If you really want to be sure, just get the 4th edition used. It surely will be enough. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/073555787X/ref=sr_1_2_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486744787&sr=1-2&keywords=chemerinsky+constitutional+law

> Is there any secondary source I could be pointed to that might make the whole con law concept easier to grasp?

The answer to this question is always Chemerinsky's hornbook. I outlined this instead of my textbook and it worked out very well.

Because they are ignorant of our Constitution...

Mark Levin, in my opinion, is considered a leader in this movement.

You should read his book The Liberty Amendments since you are interested in the topic. Many people think it’s the only real path to saving our country

Here's Chemerinsky, but it's not short.

There's a bunch of useful outlines/flowcharts that have been posted here and on /r/LawSchoolOutlines. If you use the search feature you'll find them.

The late Justice Scalia wrote a great book about this very topic! Legislative intent is (or was) only relevant for interpreting the words of the actual law as it is eventually written. Now the various District Courts want to expand that to show intent that was never translated into the text of the law.

I will admit to being a bit of a strict constructionist in my viewpoint, but this is something that is actually a fairly new approach to constitutional interpretation and is currently a pretty hot topic among lawyers! As the old saying goes, "Easy cases make bad law."

Chereminsky's Con Law supplement.

It will explain the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and the Constitutional amendments excluding amendments 4 and 6 as those are covered in Con Crim Pro. It will talk about the 5th Amendment however which covers the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. But it just explains the law and how the courts apply it, it will not teach you how to think like a lawyer. It will just demystify the confusion regarding Constitutional law and you would have to apply the current facts from the situation at hand to figure things out on your own.

You might enjoy this: https://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Myths-Court-Justices-Judges/dp/0313396876/

What classes specifically? Here are a few that I remember being helpful last semester:

• Conlaw: Chemerinsky book
  
• Crim: Understanding Criminal Law (if you're using the Dressler textbook)
  
• CivPro: Find the Freer/Barbri videos. Civ Pro E&E is also helpful in the weeks before finals
  
• Torts: Emanuel's Torts book
  
  ​

Oh, and here's a great look into the gun control playbook: http://www.amazon.com/Disarmed-Missing-Movement-Control-America/dp/069113832X.

I found a copy in a university library. Despite the low reviews (probably from pro-gunners), it's a fascinating peak into the gears of statism and anti-liberty activism. Know thy enemy as thyself.

Upvotes for good history and gov teachers. I had one of each. They got me to read Chomsky and Into the Buzzsaw.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479

Chapters 6, 9, 10, and 12. These will help you more than bickering with folks here.

You can read all about it in James Madison's meticulous notes.

There is also a fair amount about that particular arguement in this book

Congress has a 9% approval rating, but the member who "represents" your district is never the problem...

The average length of service in the House was under 4 years until the Progressive Era kicked off. It's about time to send it back there.

Chemerinsky's book is the only reason I got a good grade in con law in law school

Anyone who wants to learn more about constitutional law should check this out. It is massive but utterly readable as far as law books go

^ This guy thinks law strictly means legislation. The cringe hurts my eyes.

Here you go boss

And here

Annnnnnd here

Happy learning!

This guy has thought some of it through. I generally don't agree with the author, but it wasn't a bad book:

• http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273
  
  

This 100%. As for it being expensive, I rented on Amazon and it was really cheap:

LINK

Yet you cannot seem to form even a minimally cogent legal argument on why that would be unconstitutional. I'm talking to a wall here, and am seriously getting tired of going in circles with you. I won't be continuing this thread further, but will leave you with a referral to a book that was helpful for me in understanding Constitutional law.

Chemerinsky without a doubt.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1502763069&sr=1-2&refinements=p_lbr_one_browse-bin%3AErwin+Chemerinsky

This speech is based off his book https://www.amazon.ca/Making-Our-Democracy-Work-Judges/dp/0307390837

Buy Erwin Chemerinsky's supplement and don't look back. I used it during law school and during bar prep.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

Is this the one? https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1454849479/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile

This

pare ena e-reader kai katevase to calibre

Books: politics , ethics, business, social decline
, democracy, philosophy

Chemerinsky literally writes textbooks on constitutional law.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975

Here's one suggestion: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

I'm also hearing that Mark Levin's new book (out in August) will also cover the "what do we do" http://www.amazon.com/Untitled-Mark-Levin-R/dp/1451606273/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1370013118&sr=1-3

If you haven't run into the Buzzsaw, you haven't been doing real journalism. Sorry.

Not really. The promotion of "health" is explicitly stated within the definition of police power. You should read Chemerinsky he'll really explain Con Law to you.

But that's interesting that you are making an appeal to morality considering that you are morally OK with the government murdering people so that you can have a few cents cheaper gas, but you're aren't OK with the government using its explicit powers of taxation and police powers to provide adequate healthcare to the public. I get that utilitarianism is perhaps too coldly rational for you, but that doesn't even comport to deontology. Even Kant would be like, "Na bruh, that doesn't make any sense". It sounds to me that you are trying to twist objectivism into a moral framework, but objectivism is rejected as infantile by basically all schools moral thought, and even beyond that objectivism is premised on "ethical egoism" the logical conclusion of which leads most kindly to amoralism, but in practice to immoralism. So it's hard to argue objectivism is a moral philosophy beyond the term "moral" being a catchall for all schools of thought that deal with the interactions between people.

x 1000. Seriously.

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=asap_B001H6MU3G_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413514430&sr=1-1

Buy Chemerinsky's con law treatise. Seriously. It got me an A in con law, and it's succinct and well-written.
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=pd_sim_b_3

Yeah, linked below. Also, your school or local library probably has it - no need to drop 80 bucks.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MXX5ATEWXSF0XG2YTW3V

While I agree with your sentiment that, for their day, the Founding Fathers of the United States were remarkable people they also had their problems. Nearly every problem that citizens of the United States are facing today were predicted in some fashion by other founding fathers. If you really want to understand the debate, at the time, you have to read the following two books.

• The Federalist Papers
  
• The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates
  
  If you kept an open mind and read those books you will probably find yourself much more suspicious of government than you might otherwise expect. The first book of this second list was written in the 19^th century and makes very clear the problems with the US Constitution. The last two are modern extensions of thought to Spooners' writings.
  
  
• No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner
  
• The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose
  
• Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government by Kenneth W. Royce
  

Dis shit right here http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975

> people who would not be prosecuted if not for speech implicating them in a conspiracy are prosecuted because of said speech

So your argument is that criminalizing more speech is ok because sometimes some speech=evidence of criminality?

I assumed you were at least passingly familiar with the volumes of scholarship and precedent surrounding this area when I made my statement. If not, this is a great place to start. Core speech, i.e. political speech, wasn't criminalized during the Ratification era 'when the ink was fresh', if you want to take an original/textualist bent, nor was that the stated intent/purpose of dozens of founding statesmen and founding-era jurists, but only after the Alien and Sedition Acts, which again, was argued as unconstitutional by many of the same.

Or, something something Federalist normative nonsense.

I don't want to hold myself up to ridicule, but I will admit here -- I have read about conspiracies within the United States government, its bureaucracies and intelligence agencies -- that I am a wide open to believing the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax. With that said, I have yet to read anything that convinces me of this.

For myself, I am uninterested in "theories". I am interested in anomalies and inconsistencies in official narratives. Some are obviously human error, others are not. I have been reading conspiracy research for 25 years and I have never had any time or stomach for theories. I am interested in reading about the facts that don't match up.

Theories involving "disaster/crisis" actors -- a small, bizarre coterie of people who seemingly earn their living populating national tragedies -- is one of the dumbest theories I've ever come across. Few theories are so lacking in logic and proof. A few grainy photos of people who look alike? Absolutely and utterly ridiculous.

To be fair-minded, I have started reading the PDF book, Nobody Died At Sandy Hook. It's absolute garbage. I'm annotating my copy and may send it to the author.

So, the idea of hounding parents to prove their children existed, to provide death certificates, shows me the pitifully low-level some areas of conspiracy research have fallen to.

I am the audience for this kind of thing and I think this theory is utter bullshit.

EDIT: Books that have convinced me of conspiracies:

• Evidence of Revision (documentary)
  
• Kiss the Boys Goodbye by Monika Jensen-Stevenson
  
• Spite House by Monika Jensen-Stevenson
  
• An Enormous Crime by Bill Hendon
  
• Into the Buzzsaw by Kristina Borjesson
  
• On the Trail of Assassins by Jim Garrison
  
• Plausible Denial by Mark Lane
  
• Crossfire By Jim Marrs
  
• JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglass
  
• Franklin Cover-Up by Jon DeCamp
  
• Conspiracy of Silence (documentary)
  
• The Big Wedding by Sander Hicks