As was suggested in the previous reviews reading this to find a cogent methodology for Constitutional exegesis is futile, and it was with that expectation I bought the book, relying on the reputation of it's authors.

Several premises are disturbing, for they point out a lack of Historical background of our founding. It suggests there are significant anomalies, for example if the Constitution gives the States a right to republican government and does not define republican government then a pliant construction and application of the text is suggested, this kind of logic is furthered in describing the general terms of the preamble as granting a broad license for inerpretation. The number of explanations offered by Madison on the subject of republican form of gvernment alone is sufficient to dispell the former, and with regard to the latter the topic was first adressed by Brutus, an Antifederlaist, and well responded to in Federalist Essay 41. As the Federalist Essays were a response to fears and criticisms of the then proposed Constitution, the ratification debates as well as the Federalist Essays does grant a significant view as to the consent of the governed 'On Reading the Constitution' seems to deny existed, or may presently exist.

The authors proceed to draw from confusions in the 'conservative' camp regarding constitutional specificity to further their point, quoting Rhenquist from a Texas Law Review article 1976, 'The framers of the Constitution wisely spoke in general language and left to succeeding generations the task of applying that language to the increasingly changing environment..' Alas poor Madison's efforts in describing the exertions of perspicuity found in federalist 37, having missed the attention of liberals as well as conservatives, has opened the door to a pliant construction of the Constitution. We were also cautioned by Madison to be wary of the changes of the meaning of words over time, Adams once described a church service as 'awful' he meant full of awe, this example is not solitary, and it's impact has not been fully examined.

I hold no doubt both Michael Dorf, and Laurence Tribe are concerned and virtuous citizens, as well as skilled and erudite practioners of Law, yet the book allows little insight into Constitutional Exegesis. Lincoln warned at Cooper Union to never supplant the logic of the fathers when we realize they understood the question better than we, it is time we examine what they knew, instead of focusing on the confusion that might exist.

If you find youself reading this or any other work by Laurence Tribe, it is pretty safe to assume that you also find youself somewhere on the left of the political spectrum. I can only imagine that you would come to this book looking for a coherent theory on how to read and interpret that sometimes vague and confusing document upon which our country was founded. Unfortunately, you will not find much original insight in this book, though if you are merely looking for an argument with which to attack so-called "strict constructionism," this will serve that purpose quite well.

It seemed to me that this book did little more than offer up a series of comparisons between law and the Constitution and other disciplines like literature and mathematics. While that may serve a useful purpose, it is of little value for those attempting to find a workable liberal theory through which to interpret the Constitution. And repeatedly throughout this book Tribe and Dorf explicity state that they do not have such a theory, or at least refuse to claim that their ideas are in any way paramount or final.

Nonetheless, it does offer up seveal solid critiques of conservative interpretations of the Constitution which might come in handy, or at least serve as a starting point for further investigation. I would also recommed that one read Antonin Scalia's "A Matter of Interpretation," which contains a rebuttal by Laurence Tribe similar to the arguments found here, but also has a very solidly philosophical criticism of Scalia's "textualist" theory by Ronald Dworkin.

Finally, and this has little to do with this book and more to do with jwhoeme's review below - jwhoeme seems to think that Tribe's chapter or arguments on how NOT to read the Constitution somehow presuppose that he knows how to read it, and I feel that that is a rather poor assumption on the part of jwhoeme. Just because one says they know how NOT to do something doesn't me they know how to do it. I know that bashing someone in the head with a rock is not how one performs brain surgery, but that doesn't mean I have any idea how to do it properly.

Dr. Tribe of Harvard Law makes many interesting points in his book concerning the methods and approach one ought to take while reading or interpreting the Constitution. I would suggest this book to people that have read the Constitution not once but many times and who are looking to further their understanding. On the contrary you should not purchase this book looking for a formula to understand the Constitution! Rather this book promotes one's thoughts and helps the reader develop an approach in which they ought and ought not read the Constitution. Interestingly enough, for Tribe to claim that he knows the manner in which we ought not read the Constitution presupposes that he knows how we ought to. This then contradicts his final chapters when he claims that there is no correct approach to the Constitution and that any one person's interpretation is no more right nor wrong than the next reader's.