Reviews (8)

Strong Historical Analysis
Where did our constitutional rights come from? Why are they written the way they are? Were they original, or did our Founding Fathers get the ideas elsewhere? These questions and more will be answered in Levy's Origins of the Bill of Rights.

I'll begin with the weaknesses and get them out of the way. I'm not a constitutional historian, nor am I a lawyer. Although I think I'm somewhat knowledgeable, Levy could have introduced his terms better, particularly when he devotes a chapter to them. Habeas Corpus, for instance. The lawyers out there are now laughing at my ignorance, but I had to think and carefully recall exactly what that means. Law is precise, so history of law might consider being equally precise. Also, when citing cases, Levy sometimes left it unclear what the case was about.

References. Somehow, despite almost forty pages of documents in the appendix, Levy manages to not quite every actually list the amendments in their final form, despite reproducing the English Bill of Rights, the Virginia Bill of Rights, and the various House and Senate versions. All right, this is easy information to find, but would it have hurt for the book to be self-contained?

For those who care, the third and tenth amendments are barely mentioned.

Style. I'm transitioning into the good points, since one person's good style is another's bad. The middle of the book heavily emphasizes case histories, both in America and in England. Sometimes this is to the detriment of readability. If you're just reading this book out of curiosity, some philosophical discussion might be nice. If you're looking for names and dates of trials, then this is useful of course. It doesn't completely dry the book out, but it does make it drag a bit, at least for my tastes.

So what's good about it?

What's good is that Levy points out, thoroughly and conscientiously that we have rights. We, the people. Me. You. The neighbor down the street. These rights come from somewhere, and they go back a long way. To those who want to know what the original intents were of the authors of the constitution, this is a place to look. Do you think that the second amendment only arms the National Guard? Wrong! Do you think that the government can give religions all sorts of special treatment as long as it doesn't pick a favorite? Wrong! Do you think that a right doesn't exist unless it is specified exactly, spelled out in intricate detail? Wrong! To liberals who cover their ears when the second amendment is discussed, and conservatives who are in open revolt against many of the others, read this book. Or read another one, but this one is the subject of the review. Frankly, you may be surprised at what they thought back in the olden days.

Wonderful historical reference for the Bill of Rights
Well written and interesting. This book gives a wonderful historical perspective of the laws, practices, and history that led up to the framing of the Bill of Rights. With careful study, Levy has built a window into the politics, thoughts, and fears that led to the inclusion of the BOR and includes many examples of the reasons that they were included. Well written and entertaining, this lesson in American history reads like series of short stories.

Editorial Review

Reviews (3)

Interesting thesis but ultimately unfulfilling
The author presents a fairly unique thesis that the Lochner Court was actually more progressive than is commonly assumed. To support this he classifies all substantive due process cases and boils them down to numbers from which he spins off statistical analysises.

Here is the problem, much of what the Supreme Court does is not really easily classified as a set of numbers. Saying that because the court reject more substantive due process claims than it accepted does not really prove that the Court was progressive. Actually, how the Court reaches a decision is often as important as the result and Phillips only measures the later. A case in point: In Muller v. Oregon (1908) the Court uphelp a maximum hour law for women. Now Phillips would apparently call this progressive but in actuallity the reasoning forced the state to jump through a number of constitutional hoops that the Court itself had been creating. Essentially the justices made it clear that they thought the law was good policy and that was the only reason they upheld it. Also, Phillips's model does not adequately account for repetitive cases, where well settled law is challenged repeatedly and the Court summarily ignored them. Additionally, the model fails to take into account doctrinal shifts on the Court over time; the "Lochner Court" was not a stable, unified whole. During the teens, a small but noticible shift towards a progressive outlook was experienced and was followed during the twenties by a strong conservative reaction.

The most damaging fault with this book is the fact that Phillips seems to suggest that the conservative economic activism of the Lochner Court is justified by some extent by the liberal activism experienced during the sixties and seventies. This is a bad position for a scholar. Phillips even seems to admire the Locher era's activism, such as when he notes that the invalidation of rate fixing was OK because they were bad policy anyway. Perhaps this is a byproduct of his status as a Business professor. Phillips fails to realize that activism does not cancel activism and bad policy does not equal unconstitutionality.

While this work presents valid questions concerning the Court's history and how it is viewed by scholars, it is hardly the final and authoritative voice on the subject. I hope that one day a much better study is undertaken.

Excellent Revisionist Work
Professor Phillips punctures several myths regarding the Lochner era, and does so through a surprisingly underused methodology: he actually read every case purportedly involving substantive due process during the Lochner era. Among the myths shattered by Phillips: "The Lochner era Court was practically out of control; it struck down approximately two hundred economic regulations on substantive due process grounds." "Economic substantive due process was a radical innovation supported only by reactionary Justices." "The Lochner era Court's substantive due process decisions overturned `social legislation' that would have aided the poor and necessitous at the expense of the wealthy and powerful." "The Lochner era Court's reactionary nature is demonstrated by the fact that it limited its concern for `liberty' to `liberty of contract.'" "Most, perhaps all, of the regulations invalidated by the Lochner era Court served the public interest."

This book does have its weaknesses. First, it gets repititive frequently, and could have used better editing. Second, Phillips never gets beyond his internalist perspective and fails to relate the Court's actions to what was going on in the outside world, to state and lower court decisions, or to much of anything else. Nevertheless, the book is a welcome antidote to the silly nonsense that has been propagated about Lochner by historians and law professors for generations.

Excellent Revionist Work
Professor Phillips punctures several myths regarding the Lochner era, and does so through a surprisingly underused methodology: he actually read every case purportedly involving substantive due process during the Lochner era.Among the myths shattered by Phillips:

"The Lochner era Court was practically out of control; it struck down approximately two hundred economic regulations on substantive due process grounds." "Economic substantive due process was a radical innovation supported only by reactionary Justices.""The Lochner era Court's substantive due process decisions overturned `social legislation' that would have aided the poor and necessitous at the expense of the wealthy and powerful." "The Lochner era Court's reactionary nature is demonstrated by the fact that it limited its concern for `liberty' to `liberty of contract.'" "Most, perhaps all, of the regulations invalidated by the Lochner era Court served the public interest."

Isbn: 1570030332
Sales Rank: 1240553
Subjects:  1. 1783-1809    2. 18th century    3. Courts - Supreme Court    4. General    5. History    6. History - General History    7. History: American    8. Political questions and judici    9. Political questions and judicial power    10. Politics and government    11. Reference    12. Supreme Court    13. U.S. Supreme Court    14. United States    15. United States.    16. Ellsworth, Oliver    17. Jay, John   

Editorial Review

Justice Byron White had a life that could fill two biographies. As a young man, he was a national celebrity as a student athlete who excelled on both fronts. On the gridiron, he led Colorado to its first bowl game and finished second in the Heisman Trophy voting; in the classroom, he earned himself a Rhodes scholarship. But he put off going to Oxford to lead the National Football League in rushing, garnering a record salary along the way.He served in World War II in the Pacific, and returned to earn another degree from Yale Law and clerk for the Supreme Court. After a year in the Kennedy administration, he was appointed to the Supreme Court, where he served three decades.

White's reputation with the press as a Supreme Court justice suffered because, despite his personal pro-choice views and desire for privacy, he dissented in Roe v. Wade and, 13 years later, wrote the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, determining that "the Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy," even behind closed doors.

Hutchinson argues persuasively that these opinions were the result of a consistent judicial philosophy that refused to view the judiciary as a legislature. In his dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade, for example, White wrote, "This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs." And in Bowers v. Hardwick, he commented, "The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution."

Reviews (5)

Same old political book
I bought this book at a garage sale and read the first few chapters and skimmed through the rest.This book is well written and has an interesting message, but it has all been done before.In modern days, it is hard to find a truly original political book.Despite the fact that Dick Cheney may possibly be the most boring man in America, his book does have some value, but I would only recommend it for true political history lovers, don't buy it on a whim like I did!

Controlling Caos
Want to know where the real seat of control lies in the US government?Then this book about some of the most powerful men in the history of the House of Representatives is an excellent (although short) resource.I now have a much better appreciation of the need to ensure control of that body is in the hands of truthful, focused and principled people.

The book needs a re-write, though.It stops (was published) before the full impact of Newt Gingrich's term could be evaluated.

Read this book and you'll have a new respect for the workings of the House of Representatives and, by extension, the federal government - something like controlling chaos!

Reviews (1)

Reviews (1)

Headed to the Hill? - Read This
Learn some of the ins and outs of Congress by following the narrative of one bill: the Family Medical Leave Act from the mid 80s to its passage in 1993.

Elving constructs a solid narrative in which the main character is actually a piece of legislation. From this unique vantage point, the reader captures the atmosphere and culture of Congress.

This book is easy stuff for Capitol Hill longtimers, but more importantly its not too difficult for newcomers who want to wade into congressional politics with a good yarn rather than a dry and dusty book of rules.

Isbn: 0521288657
Sales Rank: 483545
Subjects:  1. 1865-1933    2. Government - U.S. Government    3. History    4. History - General History    5. History: American    6. Politics and government    7. United States    8. United States - General    9. Central government    10. History / United States / General    11. Local government    12. USA   

Editorial Review

Reviews (2)

Superlative and engaging history of the legal system!
Mr. Rembar has created, if you can believe it, an engaging history of the Anglo-American legal system.He has done a superlative job of making the development of writs and other legal tools of the legal system we knowtoday into a highly readable text which will appeal to those outside of theprofession, as well as to practitioners. Using the last known duel to occurin the UnitedStates, Mr. Rembar develops the concept of trial by battleinto an explication of how our legal system came to be as it is. He showshow and why this archaic legal concept has fallen into disfavor andexplains why the paradigm shifts have occured. His use of the reign ofHenry II of England as an exemplar of legal innovation is entralling andgives a new insight into the lives and processes that stood at theinception of our law courts and all their minions. This book is currentlymy top recommendation to anyone who reads history for pleasure.

A fascinating allegory of western legal systems
Attorney Rembar is the counsel who successfully defended (mildly erotic by today's standards) literature before the Supreme Court.This work is a fascinating study of the history of law and a fine advocate's perspectiveof the western legal tradition from its British origins through modernstatutory and regulatory systems.

Isbn: 0195044606
Sales Rank: 435247
Subjects:  1. History    2. History - General History    3. History: American    4. Law    5. Legal History    6. Legal System    7. United States    8. United States - General    9. Jurisprudence & General Issues    10. Laws of Other Jurisdictions & General Law    11. USA   

Reviews (9)

CREDIBLE?
I read this book a few years ago as a requirement for my Master's degree in public administration. I read along with interest because the story that unfolded read like some sort of sordid drama, like something you might see on prime time television. It had suspense, intrigue, and some of the most stunning ups and downs. And all this from a book that attempts to comprehensively explain the hopeful beginnings and hopeless endings of the Clintons' (both Bill and more specifically Hillary) attempts to implement universal health care in the United States. Think back, if you will, to the campaign promises Bill Clinton made in his first campaign. He vowed to fight for universal health care. Many Americans like this idea, but when it comes right down to it, most Americans do not trust the government to provide their health care and also feel that government intervention in private health care makes the system... socialist. Bill wanted to change this, and when he was elected, he appointed his wife, Hillary, to chair a committee to research and implement this new universal health care system. However, this was his first mistake. The American people at that time were very suspicious and skeptical of Mrs. Clinton, feeling that she did not embody what a First Lady should be. They also felt that she had demonstrated no real qualifications for this appointment. The writers of this book document the controversies and problems brilliantly. I felt confident about the facts... until I was happily reading along (the book, despite its daunting length, reads through smoothly and quickly) and found a most glaring and heinous error. The writers were discussing the positions of Fred Grandy, who, after leaving television, went on to represent his home state of Iowa in Congress. We all know Fred Grandy as Gopher on the tv show Love Boat. But this book said that he had been a star on the show Gilligan's Island! I started to exercise real doubt and skepticism about a book that managed to get through all stages of editing with such an easily spotted error on its pages. Whatever the case, if you want to know how the plan was formed and how it was unraveled quite easily not just by opposition Republicans but also by Hillary herself, you should indeed read this. Hillary and her policy wonk friend Ira Magaziner had many opportunities to compromise on some of the points in their health care plan which would have made it an easier sell to Republicans. In fact many Republicans offered to work with Hillary and Magaziner, but the stubborn duo insisted on having the plan intact... and ended up getting nothing. As did the American people.

Our rulers speak.Pay attention, proles!
If you read this book in the wrong frame of mind, you won't like it.The wrong frame is to believe that it consists of honest reporting about the U.S. health care system, and the Clinton health bill of `93.It's mainly not reporting.It's advocacy.

The key is found in the intro, where the authors define "The System" that rules USAmerica -- which includes the Presidency, the Congress, the media ...AHH!The fact that they think the media is part of the govt., just not elected, is itself worth the price of this volume.

Taken in this vein, it is quite good.We must have a national health system like a European country's , because ... well, because they feel embarrassed that we aren't like Europe.That the U.S. was settled, predominantly, by people who WANTED NOT TO LIVE IN EUROPE is unimportant to Johnson and Broder, who know better than to take the this self-govt. nonsense seriously.

What is serious is that the USAmerican public rejects 'socialized medicine.'So instead Clinton wrapped it up in his mess of a bill, and then tried to scare us into panic over our health care, saying the system would collapse if we didn't give control of it to the govt.Not true, and Johnson & Broder know it, but hey, can't let truth stand in the way of ruling.

Frequently THE SYSTEM is unintentionally funny, too, as when the authors take a break from reporting the `horse race' political aspects of the story to criticize the media for concentrating on the `horse race' instead of the policy substance, after which they trash the only attempt ever made to discuss the policy substance (Elizabeth McCaughey's famous piece in The New Republic) and go back to reporting the horse race.You sort of wonder if they read their own manuscript.

But have some sympathy.They do mention the policy substance from time to time -- our rulers think we spend far too much money on foolish things like attempting to save the lives of premature infants.Those resources should go to more important things, like health care for "homeless, drug abusing gay and bisexual men of color."I mean, would you want to defend THAT openly?

It's also very useful in assessing the nature of liberal bias in the press.The last chapter of the hardcover first edition, on sale in 1996, told us about good Pres. Clinton's attempts to `save' the federal budget before runaway health care spending wrecked it, and evil House Speaker Newt Gingrich's attempts to `cut health care spending,' when in both cases they were trying to do the same thing -- cut the rate at which spending on health care would increase in the future.That's one way you bias coverage -- describing things in such a way as to create the desired reaction, which in this case was to get us to run out and vote Democratic.

The last chapter of this paperback edition mentions the Kassenbaum-Kennedy bill, passed by Congress and signed by Clinton. All mention of it was carefully left out of the first edition.That's another way of biasing coverage -- leave out the `unimportant' stuff that might confuse the citizenry.

And if you practice your critical thinking skills as you read, you will learn a lot about the chaotic way Clinton ran his administration, how the Democrats lost control of the House after twenty straight wins, why the bill was so complex, and other fascinating stuff.

What you won't learnhow the Clinton health plan would have worked, of course.Obviously, they were afraid of your reaction if you found out.That is probably the most important information in the book.

Stunning inside look at politics
The Clinton Health Care plan was a bold, dramatic attempt to transform the American health care system to take into account the fact that while America may provide the best health care in the world, far too many of itscitizens are unable to afford it. Clinton's attempt, probably the mostdramatic attempt at a government program since the Great Society, failedmiserably and helped to elect a Republican Congress.

The battle thevoters didn't see was the important one- the battle which nearly sank theClinton Presidency and destroyed its ambitious health care proposal. Thepowers arrayed against the Clinton plan were formidable and well-financed,aided by the Administration's mind-numbing blunders.

"TheSystem" has the entire story- the high hopes, the stunning reversals,the industry's toxic reaction to reform. The Clintonites quickly found thatthe old adage is true. No good deed goes unpunished.

Reviews (2)

Not Well Put Together
Let me say right up front that I was disappointed in this book. Maybe I am too stuck in my ways, but when I pick up a history like this I was looking for an well-organized book.I want each President with his own chapter, some details that are presented for each person i.e. year of terms, Vice President etc, and then a nice review of what took place while in office, the good and the bad.The book just did not provide this; the presidents were grouped into chapters on what seemed to be on a basis as to total average chapter page length not by political or situational similarities.The basic facts that I wanted were not there for every President, and if they were there you needed to hunt for them.And if you are going to give me pictures then at least give me a picture of every President covered in the book, what we got were pictures of a few Presidents, a few campaign adds or jokes, and unbelievably to me pictures of city political bosses.

The book was positive; I give the author that. When there were negative issues they were glossed over if even mentioned.I new based on the size of the book that it was not going to be an exhaustive history, but even this brief look at each President left me disappointed.Also I kept thinking that the author wanted to write a history of the Democratic party and the publisher wanted a history of the Democratic Presidents and what came out was a compromise that did not serve either cause very well.I would have much rather had a few more pages on FDR (then the 15 offered) and less about the Kansas City and Chicago political bosses and the third party candidates on some elections. I do not want to be all-negative, there were a number of interesting facts and he hit the high notes on each man.I was interested enough to finish the book.I am just going to have to keep looking for a better effort at this topic.

A subjest too broad for one book.
From the start one thing needs to be made very clear about this book.It is a nice read for a Democrat, especially a partisan Democrat like myself.My Republican friends on the other hand would, I'm afraid find very little interesting about this book. Simply put, this is a very one sided view of history.Democrats tend to be pictured in the best possible light from page one.This is not to say that Mr. Rutland has not done his homework for he has.I don't think he ever set out to write an impartial historical epic.What he seems to have intended is basicly a survey type textbook for Democrats.If that was his goal he has accomplished it.Someone looking for a quick political history of the United States told from the Democratic point of view will find it here.

The simple fact is that Mr. Rutland took upon himself a rather large task in writing a history of the Democratic party.To do this task justice one would have to turn out a work that would rival in length the volumes written by Shelby Foote on the Civil War.In fact, this subject would probably require even more volumes since the subject covers over two hundred years of history. As it is the book in its 241 pages is only able to deal in the most superficial way with its subject.

Still this book does a fair job of following America's oldest party from its roots as Jefferson looks to a nation of farmers to today's urban America.Along the way we see the Democrats changing to become the party of the common man and the underdog. We see the party begin to take its present form in 1896 as William Jennings Bryan and his populists take control of the convention.We see more change in 1912 with the nomination of the progressive Woodrow Wilson.Then in 1932 FDR comes along and the Democratic party is forever changed.Old Democratic issues like tariffs and free silver give way to civil rights and labor relations. The direction of the party continues on the course set by Roosevelt as Harry Truman takes over and then LBJ sets off an a path of sweeping social change that for good or bad forever changes the United States. Oddly, the book gives little credit for the present positions of the Democratic party to JFK.

There are also a few places in the book where Mr. Rutland's facts are wrong.For example he states that in the election of 1896 William McKinley took T. Roosevelt with him to Washington as his Vice President when in fact T.R. wasn't on the ticket until 1900. For the most part however his facts do seem straight and he covers the subject as well as could be expected in such a short book.

Overall, the book could have been more in depth and such a large subject should probably never have been undertaken.I remember in high school english I always tried to choose a very broad topic for any paper I had to write because I figured it would be easy to turn out twenty pages that way.My teacher always called me on my plan though and I had to narrow it down.Maybe Mr. Rutland needed a good high school english teacher to make him do the same here.

Isbn: 0826210902
Sales Rank: 939273
Subjects:  1. Government - U.S. Government    2. History    3. Political Process - Political Parties    4. Political Science    5. Politics - Current Events    6. Politics/International Relations    7. Republican Party (U.S. : 1854-    8. Republican Party (U.S. : 1854- )    9. Republican Party (U.S.)    10. U.S. Political History    11. U.S. Political Parties   

Isbn: 0582070260
Sales Rank: 848534
Subjects:  1. Common law    2. England    3. Europe - Great Britain - General    4. General    5. Government - Comparative    6. History    7. History - General History    8. History: World    9. Justice, Administration of    10. Law    11. Sources   

Isbn: 0521356822
Sales Rank: 412642
Subjects:  1. Common law    2. Great Britain    3. History    4. Law    5. Legal History    6. Legal Reference / Law Profession    7. Europe    8. Law / Legal History    9. United Kingdom, Great Britain   

Reviews (1)

Reviews (4)

The past is a foreign country...
...they do things differently there. The Other Founders by Saul Cornell represents a needed correction to our historical understanding of American history from 1787 to 1830.
The tendency of scholars since the early works of Pocock, Robbins, Bailyn, Woods and McDonald has been to write about that period in terms divorced from a vocabulary of economic interests or class.
The other great simplification has been to see the period in bifurcated categories. Federalist vs. Anti-Federalists is the dichotomy that Cornell takes on. Does anyone think that the current American political scene can be adequately summarized as Democrats vs. Republicans? Is our current political and intellectual scene that much more complicated or nuanced or diverse than that of the founders? Only the Arrogance of the Present could make that claim.
What Cornell does is show that Anti-Federalism (A-F, for short) was a uniting of diverse interests and ideas for the purpose of opposing the Constitution. There were three major variations of A-F that Cornell delineates. There was the elitist version associated with thinkers like Richard Henry Lee and Elbridge Gerry. There was a "middling" A-F associated with New York and Pennsylvania thinkers like Melancton Smith. There was a plebian A-F associated w/ writers like William Manning and William Petrikin. By the way, getting to know these two characters is worth the reading of this book. Cornell is excellent in this early part of the book at explicating how these different types of A-F thought differently about issues like federalism, localism, the powers of juries vs. judges, representation and the role of political clubs and popular political rituals.
After A-F failed to stop ratification, they were united by their demands for a Bill of Rights. After the success of that endeavor, A-F was united by its opposition to the consolidationist tendencies of Hamilton and Adams. After the 1800 election brought to power administrations that shared their general concerns, the fault lines within A-F begin to split the movement. In the end, A-F split up into various strategies of constitutional interpretation that opposed what the Marshall court was doing.
All of this history is contained within 300 well-written pages.
There are a couple of methodological points that I want to make and then a few general comments.
The first methodological comment is that Cornell argues for a reevaluation of which were the most influential A-F writers on the basis of which were the ones whose essays were reprinted the most. This seems fair although it shunts to one side some of the more powerful A-F writers like Brutus.
The second methodological point is that Cornell uses Habermas' notion of the public sphere to great effect in this book. My problem with this is that occasionally he interjects that phrase into a quote by an A-F writer or, in one case, by Madison. I found myself wanting to go to library to read the original quote to see whether this usage might distort the meaning of the Madison quote. To introject a modern theoretical concept into a source quote is always (IMHO) questionable even if its use is arguably justified. There are bound to be distortions. But this is a somewhat minor point.
The first general comment is this. What is unique about ALL of the political theorists who wrote at this time in our history is that they were ALL either working politicians or public intellectuals. They were writing in response to the issues of the day, to the economic needs of their neighbors and to the shifting tides of power. Intellectual consistency is prized by theorists, by those isolated from life or who wish to impose on life a tyranny of ideas (if you cannot think of a current example for what I am saying than, for doG's sake, go read a newspaper). The Madison of Publius was not the same Madison who wrote the Virginia Resolution or the Report of 1800. Neither was the same Madison who served as our fourth President or the Madison in retirement from public life. This was a huge intellect responding to a vastly changing world. He realized that he had miscalculated and had to rethink basic issues. There is no one Madison that we can lay claim to. This is one of the strengths of Cornell's presentation.
Which brings me to my second point. I have a question to all those who advocate an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution. Whose "original" interpretation? Why theirs over the others that were being discussed at the time? Indeed, why theirs over ours considering how much the world has changed in the interlude? And would many of us really want to live under a national government as imagined by any of the founders?
I challenge y'all to read this book and then email me your answer. Let the debates begin!

The Antifederalist Tradition.
_The Other Founders_ by Saul Cornell provides a good overview of a unique American political tradition which began in opposition to the ratification of the Constitution.Antifederalists opposed the Constitution on different grounds, including especially the need for a Bill of Rights ammendment.Antifederalists also came to emphasize the rights of states and localism within government, opposing the strong centralizing tendencies within the Constitution and which existed after the Constitution was ratified.Individuals such as Jefferson and Madison came to embrace certain aspects of the Antifederalist tradition in their opposition to the centralizing tendencies of Hamilton, who proposed to create among other things a centralized banking system.Many of the original Antifederalists feared the influence of a large centralized government, maintaining that such a thing could lead to the promotion of an aristocracy who would operate against the interests of the common people.The tradition of Antifederalism continues to play an important part in constitutional debate today.Many have looked towards this tradition as a means for protecting the rights of states as well as Second Ammendment rights to private gun ownership from the influence of the federal government.

Editorial Review

Andrew L. Kaufman has, after 40 years of work, written what will be the definitive biography of Justice Benjamin Cardozo. Cardozo was one of the premier judges of the first half of this century, serving on the New York Court of Appeals as Chief Judge, the most influential state court in the country, and then on the Supreme Court. On the New York Court of Appeals, Cardozo rewrote tort law with his stamp; his characterizations of negligence, proximate cause, and assumption of the risk still dominate law throughout the land 60 to 80 years after his original decisions.

Kaufman recounts all of this, effectively combining legal analysis with biography. Cardozo's father was a judge tarnished with scandal, and it has long been theorized that Cardozo's life was an attempt to retrieve that lost honor. He would, for example, turn down even the simplest gifts that other judges routinely accepted. Kaufman arguably overplays the honor theme when it comes to his legal analysis, most notably in his analysis of Meinhard v. Salmon, in which the judge declared that, in matters of fiduciary obligations, "[a] trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the marketplace." Kaufman, perhaps stretching Cardozo's opinion too far to reach the desired conclusion, views this decision as "a culmination of Cardozo's efforts to implant a sense of honorable conduct into law."