Akhil Amar, a distinguished law professor at Yale University, has written a very accessible book that discusses what's wrong with criminal procedure today.

Most people tend to think that the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments protect the guilty far more than society. For example, under the Exclusionary Rule, courts must suppress evidence that is obtained unlawfully, even if the suppression results in letting criminals free. (Studies show that in reality, the percentage of cases in which criminals escape prosecution on technicalities is quite low.) Notwithstanding the cries of the ACLU and other defenders of criminal rights (such as Alan Dershowitz), most people probably think this system is crazy.

Professor Amar explains why a common sense approach is in fact the best way to interpret these constitutional rights. His analysis involves both a plain reading of the language of the Amendments (a textual approach) as well as the historical understanding of these rights (a Framers' intent approach). Both ways of looking at the issue confirm his belief that the Supreme Court has made a number of wrong turns throughout the years.

Lay persons will not find this book too difficult or theoretical.

'The process of presidential impeachment and trial thereon, culminates in a judgement of the Senate, either that the president is not guilty, or that he is guilty on one or more of the Articles of Impeachment voted by the House, and is to be removed from office. Is this judgement of conviction final, or is it in some manner appealable, to the United States Supreme Court or elsewhere'?

Good question, huh? And so begins Chapter 4 of Charles L. Black's marvelous essay on the subject of impeachment. Black wrote this book when President Richard M. Nixon occupied the White House, yet the clarity of his writing, the reasonableness of his arguments and the vigor of his analysis, still hold true today nearly a quarter of a century later. This edition, republished in 1998, includes an impressive new forward by Prof Akhil Reed Amar of Yale University. If you're looking somewhat bewildered by the goings on Capitol Hill, and by implication, the lead stories on the news, rest assured you're not alone. One moment you hear the House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee recommending four Articles of Impeachment and the next moment you see the House vote to send the President to be tried by the Senate. What gives? You ask.

Black's book takes the reader on a journey in search of the facts relating to impeachment: what it means, where it originated and how we apply tests to determine the case for or against an impeachable offence. Black also examines the role of lawyers and of the Courts.

The author's objective throughout is not so much as to provide the reader with solutions, rather it is to illuminate why certain answers are incorrect. He does this by laying the evidence before the reader, so that the reader has every chance to examine both the evidence and his conscience, prior to arriving at a determination. As in other aspects of life, the book highlights that not all issues are clearly defined, and there is indeed room for some interpretation Irrespective of whether you're keen to turn the first sod in the political grave of the President William Jefferson Clinton, or whether you'd prefer to stand at his side as the United States Senate charges him; Black's essay is lucid, elegant and entertaining. As a contribution to the debate it is invaluable.

Black's "Impeachment" is the ideal guide for the average citizen who hasn't studied constitutional law. Black gives a thumbnail sketch of the impeachment process' mechanics and explains what we know about the framers' intentions. He discusses the most often debated impeachment issues, and he offers his own interpretation of the process in general and comments on Nixon's impeachment.

The main points I took from this book are that impeachment gravely frays the fabric of American society, and that partisan politics has no place in the process; the linchpin of impeachment is the solemn statesmanship of our congressmen. If another impeachment comes about in my lifetime, I'll let my congressmen know early in the proceedings that I'm counting on them to act without partisan bias.

Black's book is remarkably relevent to the current impeachment situation, even after 25 years. Though his examples are comtemporary to the Nixon near-impeachment (and prior to his resignation), it is refreshing to read a treatise on impeachment that does not constantly refer to Starr, Lewinsky, Tripp, et al. It is not written for the lawyer, so it has a popular flavor that made it a quick read while still imparting a great deal of information.

"It is rare that a single work can so thoroughly and decisively change the way we look at a document as central to our common political life as the Bill of Rights. With The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction, Professor Amar has done just that. This book is a must-read for anyone interested enough in American politics to be reading this magazine."

For the full review by Josh Chafetz from the December 1998 issue of The Yale Political Quarterly...

I have been reading books on the Constitution for the past 45 years, and this is the single best book on the subject I have ever read. My only hope is that Professor Amar ends up on the U.S. Supreme Court, where he belongs.

There is no question that the Bill of Rights by Prof. Amar is an intellectual challenge to our conventional wisdom on the history and place of the Bill of Rights in our constitutional scheme. It's one of the most originally conceived and the most boldly executed reexamination of the Bill of Rights. If you are still unsure about the Bill of the Rights, Prof. Amar's book is the one you should read--right now!

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.

An excellent analysis of how the Justices of the Supreme Court decide whether or not a law (created by Congress or the States) is valid or not. More than just a compilation of majority, concurring and dissenting opinions, this book looks at why the decisions were made, not just what the decisions were. Well worth the money and a fine addition to the library of anyone interested in law or the legislative process.