Featured Conservative Authors
Conservative Book Zone
Conservative Classics
General Market Books
Shop our bookstore where you will find books for each conservative topic you are looking for!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom, With a New Preface
| Our Price |
$ 7.76
|
|
| Retail Value |
$ 9.95 |
|
| You Save |
$ 2.19 (22%) |
|
| Item Number |
1452098 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item Description...
Overview
A layperson's assessment of 12 of the modern world's most controversial Supreme Court decisions offers insight into how key cases have enabled the government's ability to seize and allocate private resources, in an account that argues how today's Supreme Court is compromising civil liberties as outlined by the Constitution. Reprint. |
Item Specifications...
Pages 302
Dimensions: Length: 1" Width: 6.25" Height: 9.25"
Weight: 1.38 lbs.
Binding Softcover
Release Date Jan 16, 2010
ISBN 1935308270
EAN 9781935308270
|
Availability 3 units.
Availability accurate as of May 30, 2012 04:35.
Usually ships within one to two business days from Commerce GA.
Orders shipping to an address other than a confirmed Credit Card / Paypal Billing address may incur and additional processing delay.
|
More About Robert A. Levy & William Mellor
Product Categories
Similar Products
Reviews - What do our customers think?
 | Brutus's nightmare realized Jan 4, 2010 |
I shall limit my comments to two cases included within the book. Helvering v Davis, and Kelo v New London.
The dilemma presented to the Court in the Helvering Case is the very essence of what Hamilton referred to in Federalist 78 where ' legislative invasions of it ( Constitutional Integrity ) had been instigated by the major voice of the community'. The story of the political pressures upon the Court at this time are well documented, facing either agreement to New deal policies or Court Packing the Cardozo decision gained a majority, The heart of the case came from it's predecessor Butler which admitted a view of the 'general welfare' phrase unknown to the Ratifiers of the Constitution, who at the cautions of Brutus, an anti-federalist pamphleteer emphasized that the use of the term was to natural and easy not to allow a broad construction of Constitutional authority.
The ratifying conventions accepted Publius's assertion that the specified powers defined the term 'general welfare', not vice versa (see Federalist 41 of Madison as well for the specific response). A thorough examination of the extant documents from the ratifying conventions show no mention of concern regarding the phrase, and viewed it as Madison offered, a general caption copied from the Articles of Confederation. It is recognized that in both the Helvering case and the Butler case an effort is made to find a historical record of the view of the 'general welfare', but it is limited to considering the offerings of Hamilton, with credit to Justice Story's writings, and the opposing views of Madison. This is of course as accurate as it is compartmentalized, for it obviates the larger question of what did the "People" who ratified the Constitution import on the phrase? Even more ironic is that, the very question is included in the Butler case,
The question in such cases is, not what powers the Federal Government ought to have, but what powers have, in fact, been given it by the people. P. 297 U. S. 63. Devoid of an historical investigation of what the Conventions viewed the phrase to mean, the pitting of Hamilton against is interesting but not relative to the question at hand. The real question is not what were the opinions of Madison, or Hamilton and Story, but whether either of these contrasting opinions reflect the 'consent of the governed'. The radical change in the use of the term, the "general welfare' is the poor foundation under both Helvering and Butler.
The Kelo case is another study of changing the use of a term, as was done in the Helvering case. As the Helvering case had roots in Butler it can also be stated Kelo had roots in Hawaii v Midkiff. The term public use was distinguished as having a specific meaning, and at the beginning of the synopsis of the Hawaii case it assumed that public use and public purpose are from then on to be coterminous. Noticeably Justice O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in the Hawaii case, yet was compelled to author a dissent in the Kelo case. Without going into the minutia of the writings of O'Connor in these two decisions, a quick read of Federalist 78 shows a prediction that the munificence of the Hawaii case can backfire, as Hamilton cautioned 'as no man can be sure that he may not tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer today."
In a recent symposium Assocate Justices Scalia, and Breyer debated the use of history as vital to informing the court. Justice Breyer was of the mind he was a lawyer, not a historian. For the Court to make more reliable decisions, whether in the 1930s or in the 21st Century, the use of the historical record would seem of paramount interest to the Court. If not there exists the strong probablity that we may never be able to agree on an exegesis of the Constitution, if we keep permitting unconstitutional precedents to be added to Constitutional Law. Devoid of a complete use of the historical record, the easy and natural use of terms like 'general welfare' are subject to misinterpretation, turning Brutus's warnings into his nightmare realized. | | |  | If only Lee Marvin were on the court. Nov 4, 2009 |
Well since Lee Marvin was an actor, he probably would not have gotten on the court. However, in light of the numerous rulings that have come down from the Supreme Court over the past 75 years, he probably could have done no worse than the robed minions who by and large destroyed the meaning of the United States Constitution.
Robert Levy and William Mellor takes us through some of the most egregious cases that have come from Washington from the New Deal case of Helvering v. Davis to the recent upholding of the McCain-Feingold law in the case of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. A short 220 pages, the book gives a brief outline and commentary of each bad case along with a "dishonorable mention" case that accompanied the main case in some chapters that focused on various issues from lawmaking by administrative agencies to issues of interstate commerce. The book is followed by a text of the Constitution, the amendments to the Constitution, a substantive endnote section and index.
Levy and Mellor have given us an outstanding book with sensible arguments in refuting each ruling. I recently read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" by Kevin Gutzman. In my opinion, these works are similar, but while Gutzman is reluctant to embrace the liberty of contract doctrines that sprouted from the 14th Amendment, Levy and Mellor embrace them wholeheartedly. It could be a good subject for these men to debate on. I tend to lean toward Gutzman as opposed to Levy on this issue. Nevertheless, I give this book a five-star rating for its clarity of arguments. | | | | How The Supreme Court Aided The Rise Of The Leviathan State Nov 3, 2009 |
Americans have long looked to the Supreme Court as the last bastion of their liberties and as the one institution that stands as a check against the encroachments of an Executive Branch eager to expand its power and and a Legislative Branch intent on satisfying the whims of a grasping majority. As Robert Levy and William Mellor demonstrate in their must-read book The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom, that is far from the truth. In reality, and especially in the 3/4 of a century since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has essentially stood by while the Federal Government, and the states, whittle away at long cherished American liberties.
Though they deals with at-times complex legal issues, Levy and Mellor have done a great job in this book of making those issues understandable even to someone without legal training. For each case selected, they set forth the facts of the case, their position on where the Court got it wrong, and the consequences that have developed from that decision. They also deal separately with two of the most controversial Supreme Court cases of the past 30-odd years; Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore. For different reasons, they fail to include either case in their "Dirty Dozen" list largely because they believe that the Court at least got the result right even if one could find problems with the way they got there.
In each case, Levy and Mellor clearly explain how the Court ignored the plain text of the Constitution, precedent, and quite often common sense, to reach it's decision and how those decisions have increased the power of the state at the expense of individual liberty. Oe may disagree with the author's choice of cases;it would have been interesting, for example, for them to discuss "Dirty Dozen" cases from the era prior to 1937 (and there are certainly enough of them) and how those decisions lead to the judicial ideology that created the case law they rightly decry. However, it's fairly clear that they've selected a dozen pretty bad cases, and the book provides an object lesson of what happens when one of the branches of government ignores it's Constitutional responsibilities. | | | | Great read! Sep 13, 2009 |
| I thoroughly enjoyed this book. The authors may push their agenda past their arguments in a few spots, but on the whole this is a great read! Should be required reading for our representatives. | | | | a Cato Institute conservative presentation Aug 12, 2009 |
This book makes many of George Will's columns meaningful.
A must read for true concervative incite | | | Write your own review about The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom, With a New Preface
|
|
