The Heritage Guide to the Constitution,   ISBN:9781596980013

Customer Rating: 

An excellent review and explanation of our U.S. of A. Constitution. Every American could benefit from reading it.

Customer Rating: 

From a person who has never read very much, this is a gem. I guard it with my life. Each Article, Section and Clause has its own unbiased explanation of what the Founding Forefathers thought or meant. It is also a great reference guide for further reading on Constitutional law.

Customer Rating: 

What can one say other than that the reading, and--crucially important, the intimate understanding of this Document, is ESSENTIAL for this Country's survival and the proper governance of WE THE PEOPLE!

Customer Rating: 

Almost every bill and bureaucracy Congress passes and/or approves is an unconstitutional and expanding encroachment into the precincts of private and individual liberty - that is, our God-given inalienable rights.

The federal judiciary has been just as incrementally complicit in these transgressions, as well as, due to their lifetime appointments, chronologically far more dangerous.

Our elected officials, appointees and government bureaucrats are engaged in a longitudinal and synergetic betrayal of our National Charter that has long ago crossed the line of a sort of collective treason.
This Guide gives the, who, when, where and how.

It also reveals where these branches have been reticent, lazy, selfish and remiss in upholding their proper authority.
For example, there was a time when our Executives were good judges whose veto pens were their gavels.
Now, it seems the ranks of our government - elected, appointed and bureaucratic - are littered with those who would foster our demise through the wiles of Cloward and Pivens.

One example is how the sloppy ambiguity of bills passed in the House and Senate are both lazy and nefarious.
On one hand, lazy legislators skirt their responsibility for crafting clear, cogent bills - leaving it to the courts to interpret.
On the other hand, the bills are deliberately scribed loose, ambiguous and open to conflicting interpretations as a duplicitous way for legislators to trick all sides of their constituencies.
Hence, the legislators can blame the courts for "unfavorable outcomes," thereby protecting their standing among their constituencies.
This is a favorite trick among most democrats today who are advancing the liberal (spelled M-a-r-x-i-s-t,) agenda because it gives them plausible deniability.

Another example is the term "common Defence and general Welfare" in the Spending Clause.
"Common Defence and general Welfare" is a unified term in the Spending Clause.
Hence, the original intent of the "general welfare" is merely an appendage of national security in a military/intelligence (as opposed to a `nanny/statist') sense.

We learn that Alexander Hamilton had a liberal understanding of spending.
However, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson held that only spending that is explicitly defined by "enumerated powers" was the proper interpretation.

The latter position held until after the civil war, when the "general Welfare" clause was interpreted to apply uniformly across the entire country for infrastructure, (e.g. bridges on interstate highways, which are applicable to both interstate commerce and national security.)

A contemporary interpretation of this conservative trend would imply that purposes which are exclusively ideological, secular, ethnic, religious, etc., and/or that are strictly local, parochial or provincial, are both in practice and implicitly proscribed.
In other words, such a ruling would claim that, because neither interstate commerce nor national security are involved, the federal government does not have the legitimate authority to demand that a County Courthouse remove plaques of the Ten Commandments, nor can it impose the secular mores of the "Church of Liberalism"1 on a local school district by denying children the unalienable right to pray.

This interpretation prevailed until FDR, when the Court2 used the metastasizing usurpation known as "judicial review,"3 to further twist the Constitution out of shape by ruling that the definition of the spending clause was a nonjusticable question left to congressional wrangling. (p. 95)

In Marbury v Madison, the Court hijacked for itself an exclusive and controversial Constitutional power, (i.e. judicial review,) which was a subtle perforation of the `separation of powers,' that placed Congress on the Court's invisible leash.

Later, in U.S. v Butler, and with the blessing of the Executive, this judicial insurgency cell of unConstitutional captors `awarded' Congress the leeway to completely define the Spending Clause.
In other words, like an estranged Madam in a brothel of economic pedophiles, the Court claimed for itself the rogue and discretionary authority to keep and/or distribute this hijacked power in the ideological direction de jour, effectively transforming the growing perforation in the wall separating powers into an open and outright breach.

This set the stage for the unconstitutional and unaccountable expansion of Leviathan, under which democrats delight in masochistic fawn, conservatives rail and polish their arms and subjects are cowed, but not for long.
Because of this judicial malpractice and the subsequent and wonton tomfoolery that is perpetrated on our treasury, most of what is defined and passed by congress today has no connection (explicit or implicit) to enumerated powers.

Hence, the seeds of totalitarianism were planted while the `state' is "living beyond all your means."4

"This...was not the Framers' plan and is not the meaning of the Spending Clause." (p. 96.)

Whatever the issue, whether spending, amending, districts, consent, yatta, etc., ad-infinitum, you will find articles that shine light on these topics from a cogent, originalist perspective.

It will be difficult and painful - like shrinking a cancerous growth with kemo-therapy, or sticking to a SlimFast diet - but this text can be a priceless instrument used for pulling our country from the edge of an abyss.

Keep it handy and ply it readily when engaged in any debate.

"The Panzer tracks of Leviathan roll slow and incrementally, clouding enlightenment while crushing liberty, like an oiled, Orwellian machine."5


1 Coulter, Ann, Godless, "The Church of Liberalism," (2006.)

2 (U.S. v Butler, 1936.)

3 (Marbury v Madison, 1803,)

4 Traffic, "The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys," (1971.)

5 Pipia, (1998.)

Customer Rating: 

THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)

There are many citizens in our country who do not understand the law of the land. This is probably the reason that we are often given a choice between politicians who do not care about those laws. This book is a good starting point for people who want to learn more, or for people who have more understanding and need a quick constitutional reference tool. It is published by the Heritage Foundation.

The format of the book is simple and easy to follow. The text of a section of the constitution is presented followed by an explanation. The explanation recounts historical incidents and supreme court cases that are relevant to the section. So for example page 225 is the begging of the part that addresses Article 2, section 4 of the Constitution. This is the section dealing with impeachment of government officials. When you read on, you understand the debates about impeachment in early America, how the impeachment process is supposed to take place and what might be considered impeachable offenses. Then you read about the three most famous cases relevant to the section, in this case the impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court Justice Samuel P Chase and Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Finally there is a "see also" list which points you to related areas of the constitution and also a list of books that are recommended for further research.

This book is not for scholars as much as it is for the average citizen. The legal discussions are not unnecessarily complicated and the terminology will be familiar to most people. I would especially recommend the book to high school and younger college students who are anticipating their first opportunity to vote!