For the People: What the Constitution Really Says about Your Rights

FOR THE PEOPLE is not a typical book about the U.S. Constitution in that it doesn't totally adopt either a liberal or a conservative viewpoint. The authors write in the introduction that the scheme of the Constitution is actually more populist than libertarian. They examine the Constitution as a tapestry rather than individual portions. The authors argue citizens have sovereignty, not government when addressing the topic of "sovereign immunity." The main point of this book is that the Constitution belongs to the citizens and that there are some facets of that document that you don't often read about. On page 7 they write " All exercise of authority must derive from us." One of the more intriguing subjects relates to amending the Constitution- the popular amendment to be specific. The authors make the case that a national referendum is a legitimate alternative. For an unfamiliar, thought-provoking book on Constitutional rights, responsibilities, and it's history I recommend FOR THE PEOPLE.

Great reading. The authors do a very good job of explaining the material. The absence of long-winded explanations and pretentious lingo makes for a very enjoyable reading.

This book is VERY thought provoking. It examines the basis for our constitutional rights with some keen insight. Problematic in the book is the fact that the authors, while building an excellent history, tend to get lost in their own vision /version of what the Constitution means rather than a clearly referenced document with meanings that can be clearly seen today. I own the book, not for its point of view but because of the issues it raises.

Amar and Hirsch set forth a number of theses that are sure to infuriate mainstream constitutional scholars: the importance of the jury, the centrality of the militia to the framers, and above all, their emphasis on popular sovereignty. Some parts of their analysis are less persuasive than others -- the notion of amending the Constitution without formal amendment, for example -- but overall the book is certain to arouse interest in many quarters.

For The People is an ideal book for the general reader with an interest in the Constitution as a living document. Focusing on several topics of current interest (including gays in the military, the right to bear arms, and the jury system) the authors offer a look both at the intentions of the founding fathers and the subsequent historical developments which have influenced our reading of the document. The book provides a populist perspective that cuts across partisan lines, with something to delight and to infuriate ideologues of both the left and the right. Without condescending to the lay audience, For The People is a serious and highly readable examination of the Constitution.