General

Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality

The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides)

In The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, readers will follow the Supreme Court as it uses the Constitution as a fig leaf to cover its blatant seizing of the people's right to govern themselves through elections. Gutzman unveils the radical inconsistency between constitutional law and the rule of law, and shows why and how the Supreme Court should be reined in to the proper role assigned to it by the Founders.

Constitutional Law: Principles And Policies (Introduction to Law Series)

Written by leading scholars, each title in the "Introduction to Law" series contains comprehensive treatment in black-letter style. Featuring footnotes citing to case law, statutory and other authorities, these volumes are ideal for in-depth research on particular issues and points of law.

Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy

Praised everywhere as a stunning work of reportage, TAKEOVER lays bare a hidden agenda, three decades in the making, to allow the White House to wield enormous powers, unchecked by Congres or the courts--an agenda that links warrantless wiretapping and Bush's judicial nominees, torture and Cheney's energy task force, the faith-based initiative and the imprisonment of citizens without trial. TAKEOVER tells the story of how a group of true believers, led by Cheney, set out to establish near-monarchical executive powers that, in the words of one conservative critic, "will lie around like a loaded weapon"for any future president.

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment

A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (The University Center for Human Values Series)

We are all familiar with the image of the immensely clever judge who discerns the best rule of common law for the case at hand. According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a judge like this can maneuver through earlier cases to achieve the desired aim--"distinguishing one prior case on his left, straight-arming another one on his right, high-stepping away from another precedent about to tackle him from the rear, until (bravo!) he reaches the goal--good law." But is this common-law mindset, which is appropriate in its place, suitable also in statutory and constitutional interpretation? In a witty and trenchant essay, Justice Scalia answers this question with a resounding negative.

In exploring the neglected art of statutory interpretation, Scalia urges that judges resist the temptation to use legislative intention and legislative history. In his view, it is incompatible with democratic government to allow the meaning of a statute to be determined by what the judges think the lawgivers meant rather than by what the legislature actually promulgated. Eschewing the judicial lawmaking that is the essence of common law, judges should interpret statutes and regulations by focusing on the text itself. Scalia then extends this principle to constitutional law. He proposes that we abandon the notion of an everchanging Constitution and pay attention to the Constitution's original meaning. Although not subscribing to the "strict constructionism" that would prevent applying the Constitution to modern circumstances, Scalia emphatically rejects the idea that judges can properly "smuggle" in new rights or deny old rights by using the Due Process Clause, for instance. In fact, such judicial discretion might lead to the destruction of the Bill of Rights if a majority of the judges ever wished to reach that most undesirable of goals.

This essay is followed by four commentaries by Professors Gordon Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon, and Ronald Dworkin, who engage Justice Scalia's ideas about judicial interpretation from varying standpoints.

We are all familiar with the image of the immensely clever judge who discerns the best rule of common law for the case at hand. According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a judge like this can maneuver through earlier cases to achieve the desired aim--"distinguishing one prior case on his left, straight-arming another one on his right, high-stepping away from another precedent about to tackle him from the rear, until (bravo!) he reaches the goal--good law." But is this common-law mindset, which is appropriate in its place, suitable also in statutory and constitutional interpretation? In a witty and trenchant essay, Justice Scalia answers this question with a resounding negative. In exploring the neglected art of statutory interpretation, Scalia urges that judges resist the temptation to use legislative intention and legislative history. In his view, it is incompatible with democratic government to allow the meaning of a statute to be determined by what the judges think the lawgivers meant rather than by what the legislature actually promulgated.

Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate

The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet Classics)

The dissenting opinions of Patrick Henry and others who saw the Constitution as a threat to our hard-won rights and liberties.

Edited and introduced by Ralph Ketcham.

The U.S. Constitution: And Fascinating Facts About It

In The U.S. Constitution & Fascinating Facts About It you'll see the entire text of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence--and much more! You'll find interesting insights into the men who wrote the Constitution, how it was created, and how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in the two centuries since its creation.

Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws

In this incisive and insightful book, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano peels back the legal veneer and shows how politicians, judges, prosecutors, and bureaucrats are trampling the U.S. Constitution in the name of law and order and fighting terrorism. Napolitano reveals how they:

 

• silence the First Amendment
• shoot holes in the Second
• break some laws to enforce others
• entrap citizens
• steal private property
• seize evidence without warrant
• imprison without charge
• kill without cause

 

Pundits on the right, left, and center have praised Constitutional Chaos for its penetrating examination of our rights and liberties in the post-9/11 world.

 

"Has the war on terrorism taken away some of your rights? In a non-ideological way, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano answers that crucial question. This book will open your eyes."-Bill O'Reilly

 

"This book is a wake-up call for all who value personal freedom and limited government."-Rush Limbaugh

 

"In all of the American media, Judge Napolitano is the most persistent, uncompromising guardian of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. . ."-Nat Hentoff

 

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is Fox News Channel's senior judicial analyst, seen by millions on The Big Story with John Gibson, The O'Reilly Factor, Fox and Friends, and other shows. His articles and commentaries have been published in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Newark Star Ledger, and other national publications.