The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
Kevin R. C. Gutzman; Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2007
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the US Constitution provides an account of the creation of US Constitution and Constitutional law grounded in the events prior to, during, and after ratification. The author, Kevin Gutzman, then proceeds to establish the Constitution has been largely dismantled over time, chiefly by the Judiciary branch.
The weight that the author gives to his argument through countless examples is almost alarming. The biggest downside to is that Gutzman could have cast a wider net, implicating the Legislative and the Executive branches, then again paper is a scarce resource.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This book’s subject is the extent to which “constitutional law” is inconsistent with the Constitution, and thus after detailing the reasons for the Revolution and the way that the Constitution was explained to the People in the first place, it focuses chiefly on the judiciary. For American culture more generally, see my follow-up book (with Thomas E. Woods, Jr.), _Who Killed the Constitution? The Federal Government vs. American Liberty from World War I to Barack Obama_.
Dr. Gutzman,
Thank you for taking the time to reply personally to my blog post. I must say that I really appreciate the primary-source driven scholarship that has recently surfaced from people such as you, Congressman Ron Paul, Thomas E. Woods, and Judge Andrew Napolitano. I do have a quick question on the title of “Who Killed the Constitution”. I notice that there are two titles, one is:
Who Killed the Constitution? The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush
And the latest
Who Killed the Constitution? The Federal Government vs. American Liberty from World War I to Barack Obama
Noticing the pattern I am wondering if you and Thomas E. Woods plan to update the book with each new President? If so, that’s quite a tongue-in-cheek response to the “living document” interpretation.
All the best,
Brian