Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right, by Ray Raphael

Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right, by Ray Raphael

By saving Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong And How To Get It Right, By Ray Raphael in the device, the means you review will certainly likewise be much less complex. Open it as well as begin reading Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong And How To Get It Right, By Ray Raphael, basic. This is reason that we propose this Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong And How To Get It Right, By Ray Raphael in soft documents. It will certainly not disturb your time to get the book. On top of that, the on the internet heating and cooling unit will likewise reduce you to look Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong And How To Get It Right, By Ray Raphael it, even without going somewhere. If you have link internet in your workplace, house, or device, you could download Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong And How To Get It Right, By Ray Raphael it directly. You could not additionally wait to obtain the book Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong And How To Get It Right, By Ray Raphael to send out by the vendor in various other days.

Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right, by Ray Raphael

Free PDF Ebook Online Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right, by Ray Raphael

Americans on both sides of the aisle love to reference the Constitution as the ultimate source of truth. But which truth? What did the framers really have in mind? In a book that author R.B. Bernstein calls “essential reading,” acclaimed historian Ray Raphael places the Constitution in its historical context, dispensing little-known facts and debunking popular preconceived notions.For each myth, Raphael first notes the kernel of truth it represents, since most myths have some basis in fact. Then he presents a big “BUT”—the larger context that reveals what the myth distorts. What did the framers see as the true role of government? What did they think of taxes? At the Constitutional Convention, how did they mix principles with politics? Did James Madison really father the Constitution? Did the framers promote a Bill of Rights? Do the so-called Federalist Papers reveal the Constitution’s inner meaning?An authoritative and entertaining book, which “should appeal equally to armchair historians and professionals in the field” (Booklist), Constitutional Myths reveals what our founding document really says and how we should apply it today.

Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right, by Ray Raphael

• Amazon Sales Rank: #679561 in Books
• Published on: 2015-09-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Dimensions: .90" h x 5.80" w x 8.90" l, 1.00 pounds
• Binding: Paperback
• 336 pages

Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right, by Ray Raphael

From Booklist The historian and author of several books about the period of the American Revolution takes a look at some of the commonly held beliefs about the Constitution. For example: lots of folks think the framers of the Constitution were dead set against taxes. Not so: “no taxation without representation” is a cool rallying cry, but without the ability to tax the citizenry, the Confederation Congress would have been unable to provide such necessary things as a way to defend the country against attack. Another example: many people believe that the Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights. However, the truth is this: the Constitution of the U.S., unlike many of the states’ constitutions, did not originally contain “a thoughtful listing of rights but only a scattering of guarantees.” The Bill of Rights came later, after the Constitution was ratified, through a series of amendments, some of which altered or deleted provisions of the original Constitution. Raphael has a lively writing style, but he doesn’t skimp on historical details. This fascinating account should appeal equally to armchair historians and professionals in the field. --David Pitt

Review Praise for Constitutional Myths:"Take off your rose-colored glasses, people: The Founding Fathers embraced a strong federal government, at the risk of falling into anarchy and disintegration. Therein lies the kernel of the author’s readable demystification of some of the ongoing crusades by conservatives touting the supremacy of “originalism.”…With documents amply provided at the close of the text, Raphael provides a truly accessible teaching tool."—Kirkus"Wonderfully lucid and highly informative."—Edward J. Larson, Pulitzer Prize–winning author of A Magnificent Catastrophe“[A]n adept corrective to some of the most strident imbalances in contemporary debates over the implications of the Founding.”—Political Science Quarterly“An extraordinarily important and nuanced work of history that places the Constitution, and the men who created it, in their proper eighteenth-century context.”—Richard R. Beeman, author of Plain Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution.

About the Author Ray Raphael is a Senior Research Fellow with Humboldt State University in Northern California. His sixteen books include A People’s History of the American Revolution; Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past; and Mr. President: How and Why the Founders Created a Chief Executive.

Where to Download Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right, by Ray Raphael

Most helpful customer reviews

25 of 28 people found the following review helpful. Constitutional Myths: What it gets right and how it makes sense By Jeff V Constitutional Myths is a real work of history, not your usual debunking book. I learnedall sorts of things I never knew. In the six months before the Constitutional Convention,Congress received from the states (its only source of income) a grand total of $663- that's all the money it had to run a nation from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, so Ican see why the framers wanted to create a more viable government. The first time theSupreme Court assumed the power of deciding on a law's constitutionality was notMarbury v. Madison in 1803 but Hylton v. United States in 1796. (The Court said thatDaniel Hylton from Virginia had to pay a luxury tax on 125 carriages because Congressdid indeed have the constitutional authority to levy this tax.) The Federalist was notcalled The Federalist Papers until 1961, but now we assume a title the authors neverknew. James Madison, whom the textbooks call the "Father of the Constitution," lostout on 40 of the 71 matters in which he voiced opinion. I thought Madison was all aboutstates' rights because he and Jefferson wrote the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions in1798, but in 1787, at the Constitutional Convention, he wanted to give Congress theabsolute power to veto state laws "in all cases whatsoever." (The author does not criticizeMadison for changing his mind; he just shows how the Founders said different things atdifferent times as particular situations developed, as political figures do today.) I could goon and on. You just don't find this stuff in the textbooks.Each myth starts with a "Kernel of Truth," since all myths do contain some truth, thenproceeds with a brief section called "BUT" that suggests a larger context, and finally"The Full Story," which offers a more detailed historical account of how the Constitutionevolved in that respect. If you feel set in your ideology and are not open to learninganything new, don't bother to read Constitutional Myths. But if you are willing to putpartisanship aside for a moment and want to see the Constitution in its real historicalcontext, this is your book. It's very even-handed. It's not about "right" versus "left" butabout going back in time to see the how and why we have the Constitution we do.In terms of interpreting the Constitution, the chapter on Originalism is very helpful. TheAmazon reader's review by Christopher Twelvetrees says indignantly, "In fact, there aremany different streams of `originalist' thought, and they shouldn't be lumped together." Idon't think he actually read the book because the author doesn't lump them together. Thechapter opens with a careful and precise explanation of the three strands of Originalism(original intent, the understanding of the ratifiers, and the original meaning of the wordsat the time), and he is always clear which one he is talking about. Justice Thomas, forinstance, favors original intent but uses them all; Justice Scalia disavows original intentbut insists on original meaning.The reviewer says, "The Originalists know more than leftists and eggheads like theauthor that times change, and circumstances. The point is not to keep the Constitutionfrom changing. That is a lie." But Scalia himself, quoted in the book, say the "wholepurpose" of a constitution "is to prevent change." The meaning of each principle, Scaliasays, is "rooted in the moral perceptions of the time." (Scalia's emphasis.) But thiswould mean that a person convicted for shoplifting today could be lashed and brandedin the hand, since the moral perception of the time would not consider this a "cruel andunusual" punishment. Scalia himself admits this raises a problem, but the only defensehe offers is that originalism is "the lesser evil" (his words) when compared with the"living Constitution" method. "The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not livingbut dead," Scalia says - whether you like him or not, Scalia is always very direct. Here aselsewhere, the author presents both sides of the debate.Finally, the appendices are VERY useful. They include not only the usual suspects(Articles of Confederation, Constitution, and Bill of Rights) but also two working draftsof the Constitution from during the Convention and Madison's original proposal fora Bill of Rights, which help you see how the final versions evolved. I like to read theoriginal sources, not just what other people say about them.

21 of 24 people found the following review helpful. Interpretation Iconoclast By VA Duck This book is a serious look at the Constitution and the fundamental fallacies in the interpretive schemes that have evolved since. It is written in language easily understood by any who care to devote the time to the read.Author Ray Raphael does a masterful job of making his case. Even if the author does not convince - he will have imparted some serious doubts in the way the constitution is "interpreted". It begins a bit tutorial - in the style of "an idiot's guide to...", a tedious adventure that this author has dabbled in before, see his The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Founding Fathers. Persist though - Raphael settles into some compelling demonstrations of logic supported by a depth of research with full and impressive citations in the notes section.Even by the title, Originalists will be on guard from the start, but all the more reason to explore what Raphael has to say. He pokes at the METHOD of deducing constitutional direction not necessarily conclusions, or your favorite beliefs. What he has to say is, in-short, that the 55 delegates to the "Foederal Convention of 1787" went in in May and came out in September (earlier for some) with 55 separate opinions of what was agreed in those intervening months. Raphael cautions throughout to be careful (suspicious?) of "guiding" quotations from the Framers... almost always misquoted, or misused by those espousing their own agenda. The reason - because the framers, compromised, politicized and evolved their thoughts during and even well after the Convention.The genesis and evolution of the Bill of Rights itself is an interesting demonstration of the change in importance and emphasis placed on the constitution then and now. Sacred today, the first 10 amendments were nuisance for the proponents, or mere "whip syllabub" (Chapter-7, loc. 2935) for the requestors at the time of their ratification (also well documented in Richard Labunski's, James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights.) Even Madison characterized (at least the politics of what came to be known as) the Bill of Rights, as "the nauseous project of amendments" (chapter-7, loc. 2959)."The Federalist", written by three (brilliant) men - one of whom was never in the room, another who changed his philosophical outlook 180º from staunch nationalist to states rights within six years of the signing and a third accused of "monarchist" leanings - is today relied upon (counterintuitively) for original meaning! Madison himself believed the records of the state ratifying conventions were the best source for interpretation of the Constitution (see R.B. Bernstein's book, The Founding Fathers Reconsidered, page 148, Loc. 2498).The heuristic, or rule of thumb that we all want in order to understand how to "interpret" the constitution may not be possible with either intent or original meaning, precisely because either approach must contend with 55 or more (the ratification process) philosophically disparate "framers"."Constitutional Myths..." is thoroughly recommended for those interested in the constitution, or suspicious of sacrosanct conclusions drawn from it.-----kindle edition-----Generally well done: typos none, page numbers also (unfortunately) none, hyper linked table of contents ✔, GoTo menu integrated TOC ✔, swipe up/down chapter change ✔, integrate w/dictionary ✔, illustrations n/a, hyperlinked index ✔, linked notes/citations ✔, bibliography/appendix ✔. e-Book publication quality ★★★★☆

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful. A real historian looks at the Constitution By parallel It's refreshing to read a book about the Constitution that isn't about catch phrases or quick and easy interpretation. Mr. Raphael attempts to reveal the complexity of debate at the bottom of our seminal document. While bloggers and political hacks love to quote the "founding fathers" they fail to recognize that there was rarely complete agreement even among these. Mr. Raphael uses Madison as an excellent example of how he changed his opinion of the Constitution at least three times throughout his life. How, then, do we decide which belief was most "accurate?" If one founder has multiple interpretations, then calling for the multitudes of founders to have a single, best view of this document becomes a useless exercise and the Constitution must be seen as a guiding principle. This, too, Mr. Raphael does a wonderful job in explaining.

See all 8 customer reviews... Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right, by Ray Raphael