"; if(is_file("header.php")) include "header.php"; else include "../header.php"; ?>

An argument for conservative activism If you are new to the study of constitutional law, a conservative, and merely looking for ammunition to reinforce your views, this is the book. If you truly want to understand the debate regarding judicial interpretative methods from a conservative perspective, then I highly recommend you go elsewhere. Kenneth Starr's "First Among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life" and Antonin Scalia's "Matter of Interpretation" are two excellent starters. The issue at hand is judicial activism and tyranny. Rather than a respectful analysis of textualism vs. abstract principalism as debated in Antonin Scalia's "Matter of Interpretation", this book defends "originialism" vs. a court hijacked by "the extreme left". Problem is, while some liberal rulings have been activist, most have a solid basis in the principals of the constitution; this author is actually advocating extreme activism by moving towards an "originialist' method without revealing this to the un-learned reader, the Schiavo bill is an example of a Congress hoping for activist intervention by the courts. For example, most Americans would agree our free speech rights are constitutionally derived and paramount to maintaining the strength of our democratic republic. However, the "originialist intent" of that clause was to protect Congress from the tyranny of the executive branch, not to provide Americans with unfettered free speech rights. So using the author's own logic, normal, everyday Americans don't have constitutionally protected free speech rights directly derived by our Constitution, we get those rights only through State Constitutions, legislation or a current common law ruling, i.e., the Marshall court striking down the Sedition Act that actually had Congress attempting to supress citizen speech rights. Using the author's logic, it took an activist Marshall court to provide Americans with our federally protected free speech rights. Of course to an abstract principalist, the enemy of Levin, that is absurd, free speech as a principal has been with us since 1789 when the clause was ratified and we merely required the Marshall Court to make a common sense ruling that the tyranny of Congress was trying to deprive Americans of their constitutional right to the principle of free speech. Scalia's book make the case for textualism, which is closely related to original intent, he then provides guest writers a chapter to rebut his thesis. Scalia also provides a chapter that compares the structure of our constitution, where many of our clauses are structured as principals, relative to modern Germany's statute-centric constitution. This provides a reader a broad perspective of how two camps interpret a constitution with an inconsistent structure. And these prospectives come not from a talking head propagandist, but instead from serious constitutional scholars. Reading the Starr and Scalia book will provide the Conservative reader with the cases that define the current court and the interpretative methods used by all Appeals Courts. The Levin book is for those that would prefer to bully their ideological opponents, rather than actually learn why we are where are today. Would you rather have the perspective of Sean Hannity (Levin), or the perspective of conservatives on the court itself or who have spent a career aruging before the bench (Scalia/Starr)? Starr, Solicitor General for both Reagan and Bush I, and yes, the guy that investigated Clinton, wrote a great book on the cases that define the issues most Americans pay attention to regarding the Supreme Court. Starr's extensive experience arguing before the Court and his respectful presentation of the liberal viewpoint provides readers with a chance to learn the court's and his opponent's perspective. Thus Starr's readers are provided the conservative, liberal, and Court's perspective; Levin provides only raw meat for the angry.