We the People: Foundations

Rating:
Summary: Something's Missing
Review: Ackerman describes historically how we arrived at our current Constitutional jurisprudence. He compares the original Constitution with the changes arising out of Reconstruction and then out of the New Deal--emphasizing that those changes cannot be adequately described within the formal Article V ammendment process. We might wish history had gone otherwise--I know I often do--but he gives a framework to at least understand it.

This book is a major step forward in recogizing that the fundemental structures of American Constitutional law require both sound analytical models as well as rich historical context.

This is one of the handful of most thought-provoking and persuasive books I have read on the Constitutional process.

Rating:
Summary: Essential Historical Constitutional Analysis
Review: Ackerman describes historically how we arrived at our current Constitutional jurisprudence. He compares the original Constitution with the changes arising out of Reconstruction and then out of the New Deal--emphasizing that those changes cannot be adequately described within the formal Article V ammendment process. We might wish history had gone otherwise--I know I often do--but he gives a framework to at least understand it.

This book is a major step forward in recogizing that the fundemental structures of American Constitutional law require both sound analytical models as well as rich historical context.

This is one of the handful of most thought-provoking and persuasive books I have read on the Constitutional process.

Rating:
Summary: This is a terrible book.
Review: At times our constitutional jurisprudence has fundamentally changed without a constitutional amendment. Bruce Ackerman tries to expalin this. He offers the theory of a constitutional moment that occurs when the public makes it clear that it is time for a new constitutional way. The problem is that only Ackerman knows when that moment occurs. This arrogance does violence to serious and meaningful constitutional interpretation

Rating:
Summary: Something's Missing
Review: Something's missing from this book. Maybe it's that Ackerman is not as incandescently deceptive .... No, Ackerman is not so fine a worker with the constitution. It's more like he's rummaging around in the cupboard, making a lot of noise about historical debates here and there, and big supreme court decisions that do or don't bear out some preferred value. By the middle of the book, you cease to care, and just wish he'd stop making noise. .... In summary, this is an example of what the Crits refer to as a "hard book" ....

Rating:
Summary: The most significant constitutional work in 25 years
Review: This seminal piece of constitutional theory represents more than a decade of thought and consideration; it is Ackerman's opus that substantial reinterprets the traditional understanding of constitutional history. Ackerman begins by developing the concept of the Dualist Constitution. Unlike the British parliamentary system, we do not give plenary lawmaking authority to the victors of a normal election. Instead we recognize a two track system with the victors of normal elections given the political power, but not the authority to change the basic constitutional structure. To gain the power to alter the Constitution, a movement for constitutional change requires the sustained support of We The People.

Of course, this idea flies in the face of the traditional claim that the only valid means of changing the Constitution is through Article V. Ackerman claims that the two most important periods of constitutional reorientation occurred outside of the strictures of Article V by utilizing unconventional modes of ratifying popular change (see Volume 2, Transformations, for this). Ackerman argues that there were three periods of massive constitutional change: the Founding, Reconstruction, and the New Deal. Now I have historical criticisms with some of this, which is dealt with in my review of Transformations, but overall Ackerman's argument is persuasive.

After making his historical argument, Ackerman lays out a role for the Supreme Court that refutes the monist claim that Court power violates democratic principles. Ackerman argues that the Court has a preservationist role to play: that it maintains the principles established by the People against attack by politicians in normal eras.

Ackerman's book is brilliant, but one must remember that this volume is only the initial overview. It doesn't seek to explain every piece of the theory in thorough detail; that is the job for the other volumes. I would recommend that anyone reading this volume should hold off making judgments until after reading Transformations.