The Constitution Today

July 25, 2016
Yale law professor Amar (The Law of the Land), a frequent New York Times contributor, would seem the perfect choice to provide an accessible and engrossing look at current constitutional issues. Unfortunately, that’s not what this volume is. Instead of providing concise, original examinations of legal and cultural conflicts, Amar reprints dozens of previously written essays, including ones that are far from timely; for example, one advocates that the U.S. Supreme Court change its policies to allow note taking by the audience at oral arguments, and easy access to transcripts of those arguments—a change that has since been made. Dated references, such as to a possible Romney/Christie slate in 2012, are a distraction that updated, reworked entries would have avoided. These aren’t the only flaws—some points (suggesting that Hillary Clinton might win the presidency “in part based on her strong support” of Supreme Court judicial candidate Merrick Garland) are, at best, a logical stretch, and Amar veers too close to self-congratulation in his speculations about the influence of some of his writings. This is a missed opportunity that the knowledgeable and insightful Amar could still realize in a future book.

From a constitutional law expert, 20 years' worth of essays on controversial issues that have dominated the headlines.In addition to his teaching and research responsibilities, Amar (Law and Political Science/Yale Univ.; The Law of the Land: A Grand Tour of Our Constitutional Republic, 2015, etc.) has filled yet another niche "within the contemporary American constitutional ecosystem." Acting as a "constitutional journalist," writing for newspapers, magazines, and journals, he has regularly seized timely new hooks "on which to hang a broader argument that extends far beyond the news event putatively prompting the piece." In this collection, the author arranges the essays under broad headings--the three branches of government, the culture wars, the dramas attending Bill Clinton's impeachment, George W. Bush's first election, and Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act--and prefaces individual topics with updated commentary reflecting the author's estimation of how his on-deadline reporting has held up or his thinking has evolved. Subjects stretch from the hot-off-the-press, stalled nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court all the way back to Clinton v. Jones (1997) and the hazards of permitting a private lawsuit against a sitting president. Believing there are right and wrong answers to constitutional questions and convinced that the correct judgment usually emerges over time, Amar rigorously analyzes each issue in accessible prose, with humor and humility. He forthrightly confesses his bias as "a card-carrying Democratic scholar," but instances abound here--on gun rights, on the exclusionary rule, on campaign finance--where the conclusions he's reached appear to cut against his political preference. This insistence on playing fair--his willingness to, for example, praise Antonin Scalia or criticize Stephen Breyer (for whom he clerked) when the occasion demands--is one of this book's many charms, lending credence to the sharp scrutiny the professor applies to every topic and to the predictions he makes about the course of constitutional law. Bringing an unusually informed and cool head to the tumult accompanying unfolding events, Amar performs a valuable service for his fellow citizens. COPYRIGHT(1) Kirkus Reviews, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Starred review from September 15, 2016

Amar (Sterling Professor of Law & Political Science, Yale Univ.) is a legal luminary, best known for his scholarly texts (America's Unwritten Constitution; The Bill of Rights) and law review articles on the U.S. Constitution, his area of expertise. This tome may surprise legal academics, however, because it's a mammoth compilation of Amar's journalistic commentary on the Constitution and its mis/interpretation in the arena of culture, politics, and branches of government. The brief pieces span several decades of cases and controversies and originally appeared in the likes of The New Republic, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Slate, inter alia. Impressively, Amar presents a panoramic view of recent history through the lens of Constitutional interpretation. Moreover, he accomplishes this in layman's language, so that his insights are accessible to general readers. Indeed, Amar's professed intent is to educate journalists on Constitutional issues, and he succeeds unequivocally, explaining what's at stake in landmark cases such as Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, while commenting on the constitutionality of the Second Amendment and the exclusionary rule. VERDICT Indispensable for fans of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's All the President's Men.--Lynne Maxwell, West Virginia Univ. Coll. of Law Lib., Morgantown

Copyright 2016 Library Journal, LLC Used with permission.