After reading the previous review I felt that prospective readers should know more of what this book contains. It is a volume that presents the actual majority and minority opinions of those Supreme Court decisions most significant in the field of constitutional law. Other books might, for instance, give you an analysis of the Dredd Scott decision, but this book presents the actual wording of Chief Justice Taney's opinion. About 100 cases are included, with the opinions edited to make them more manageable. It's an invaluable reference for those interested in some of the country's most important legal decisions. Its only deficiency is that it doesn't cover any cases after 1984.

If this book interests you, then you might also consider "The Constitution and Religion", edited by Robert S. Alley. It also consists of the actual opinions in cases involving the first amendment and religion. For analysis of cases and biographies of Supreme Court justices consider buying "The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court."

I had to read excerpts from this book for a CTY course I took this summer. At the beginning it was really hard to read and I was getting fustrated with it, but after a little bit I got the hanf of it and I really enjoyed it. By the end of the course my whole class was having "Fun with Kutler"

This is an excellent book for students who are in, or who plan to enter AP US History. It's also excellent for History lovers.

Baughman's book is a joy to read because of his skillful writing. This is an ideal eaxample of how to write a book of this sort. Every point he makes is worth making and is increadibly clear. He never repeats his points and covers a great deal of territory. I definitely recommend this book to any student of American history, media studies or consumer culture.

The Watergate break-in and coverup scandal that toppled the presidential administration of Richard Nixon is, maybe arguably, one of American history's watershed events. Why is clearly explained by Richard Kutler in his historically rich book that is very probably the most comprehensive and easily understood publication on the subject. Kutler begins with the approval by the president's men of the break-in at the headquarters in the Watergate complex of the National Democratic Committee and, after the plot's five burglars are nabbed, the conspiracy to cover up the involvement of the White House in the break-in. Kutler is rightly clear in pressing the point that there has never been any evidence that Nixon himself approved the break-in (that was OKed by the president's operatives). But, just six days after the June 17, 1972, break-in, Nixon ordered the coverup in the now infamous smoking gun taped conversation with chief of staff H.R. Haldeman. From the apprehension of the break-in's participants, Kutler takes us to the Senate investigative committee that gradually chipped away to lead to the articles of impeachment that were being advanced but not forwarded to the House because of Nixon's resignation. The number of participants in the Watergate affair is sheer numbing, but Kutler does a tremendous job in not getting his reader too bogged down in trying to keep the cast straight. In the end, though, the historical value of Kutler's contribution is why Watergate essentially redefined the presidency, how it altered the American public's perception of the nation's highest office and why and how the built-in safeguards against a tyrannical presidency worked. As for Nixon, it goes without saying he was a truly tragic figures whose pettiness sabotaged what could likely have been one of the most effective presidential administrations in history. Kutler concludes with a tantalizing question: assuming that Nixon did, to some extent, rehabilitate his public image in the years before his death, was that rehabilitation due to the fallen president's changing his character's fatal flaws, or was it because he simply out-lived most of what he called his "enemies?" All this and more in one of the most compelling documents in the Watergate fiasco.

Most books on Watergate were written not long after the scandal broke by either journalists or by the participants. Stanley I. Cutler is one of the first to look at the scandal from a "historical" perspective. He does an excellent job of presenting the events in the proper historical context, removed as they now are from the political passions that bolied over at the time. Nixon then was a discraced figure with a core of ardent supporters. He managed to partly rehabilitate himself before his death by outlasting many of his enemies. This book shows, in all grim detail, why Nixon should never be allowed to complete his quest for rehabilitation. It shows clearly the dangers of electing a President willing and able to deliberately misuse his power.

This is the clearest, most concise, most accesible book on Watergate I have ever come across. Its most important feature is providing the reader with a deepr understanding of Watergate beyond the mere surface aspects of the cover-up, but instead lets one understand the implications the Nixon Administartions activities had for the nation. At times, the book may seem too partisan, and the large "cast of characters" can be hard to juggle. These minor criticisms aside, it as an important book to read, particlulary for young people in light of the recent Clinton impeachment hearings, so that they may judge for themselves whether or not that scandal in fact had the gravity and import of Watergate.

The Jacksonian Promise: America 1815-1840 covers everything: optimism with the Erie Canal, the technology improvements, the commerce, the enlightenment, religious developments, and modern politics. It is best defined as in-between textbook that does not follow everything in the Antebellum America, but enough that it's a good book to fall back onto. The book was a required reading for my History 414 (Antebellum United States: 1800-1860). I enjoyed reading the book, but at times I skipped pages to keep up. I suggest reading chapters nine and ten.

What would you read in the Jacksonian Promise? For example in Chapter 10: Descents into Discord, it covers the Democrats and Whigs, party politics, the reassessment of character, the constriction of choices, slavery and sectional cleavage, and toward Civil War.

Keller's writing is smooth and the themes are well organized. If you are looking for a book on the Jacksonian era that is a cheap and well worth the price this is the book for you. I am giving it four stars because it's well organized that you can be half asleep and copy down some good notes, the price, and sometimes it is very interesting to read. A reminder the book is actually only 204 pages because the rest are the bibliography and index.

Argues that the central feature of the Jacksonian period was its forward-looking quality, how hopeful and optimistic people were about the future. Does quite a good job of surveying the literature that's out there on the Jacksonian period. If you need a relatively short introduction to the themes of this period in American history, then this is a good place to begin

This is a great look into some of the less noted incidents of
suppression of civil rights and liberties that took place during the
McCarthy era. The author brings to light many of the demigods
running the government. He takes you through the maze of the govt agencies interrelations
and shows the attitudes towards protecting the security of America verses individual rights.

The author provides a very extensive bibiography to allow you to confirm his research.

Kutler's book provides a very interesting look at the Charles River Bridge case, a monumental period in American Law that at once signaled the development of modern corporate law and showed the beginnings of modernity in American jurisprudence. Kutler takes a thorough look at not only the legal but also the social aspects of the case, without being overly dry or scholarly.

This book went through each decade and described how the times effected the development of the American City. There were numerous examples that painted a clear picture of what it was like to live during the time of prohibition, the depression, or the suburbanization of the 60's. Teaford makes the usually boring subject of history enjoyable!

If you are interested in how the Nixon and his staff handled the Watergate issue then this is a wonderful look into the private conversations that took place. The author does a good job of setting most of the conversations up with comments as to what the conversation covers. There are also some explanations at the beginnings of the major areas of the book. I would have preferred a little bit more editing out of some of the conversations, but they do serve a point in the overall book.

What struck me the most was just how desperate Nixon kept getting. I almost started to think that maybe he even believed the lies he was telling. It was so fascinating to see how he would formulate a "cover" story and then keep presenting it to staff to see if they would replace their understanding of the events with his. What is sad is the amount of denial that Nixon was sliding into at the end. He was justifying his actions so hard, I started to think that he was trying to change reality with his force of will.

Many of the conversations are very revealing and interesting. I wonder if at times Nixon forgot he was being taped? Why would anyone think that what he was up to would stand the test of time and be thought of as acceptable behavior. You get a good understanding of why Nixon and his family fought so hard to keep the tapes private. In my opinion, these tapes have set back all the work Nixon did after leaving office to rebuild his reputation. My only warring would be that this should not be the first or only book on Watergate that you read. It will help you if have read something else to give you some back ground on the conversations. Overall the book is interesting and a good addition to your Nixon collection.

A fine addition to any Watergate library. Kutler is a dazzling professor who often turns fine logic and thinking to the wrong conclusions. As a litigation historian he can shed copius amounts of illumination onto America's law. However, the fine paths which are followed by Kutler often lead to the wrong conclusion. He has made brilliant arguments for the separation of church and state which in the end only elegantly confirm the opposite conclusion. Our high law not only encourages religous affiliations in civic life, but that government cannot in fact prohibit this free exercise of religion by not only any individual, state, judge or other federal official but by even the federal government itself. It is always a joy to consume a Kutler premise, but even more enjoyable to find the true conclusions.

If you are interested in how Nixon and his staff handled the Watergate issue, then the book Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes by, Stanley Kutler is a great one to read. Kutler does a great job of setting the private conversations up with comments as to what they cover. He also gives some explanations at the beginning of the major areas of the book. I was happy that they did not edit much of the conversations that took place because they serve a good point in the overall book.

What struck me the most about the book was just how desperate Nixon kept getting. I almost started to think that maybe he even believed the lies he was telling. It was so fascinating to see how he would come up with a "cover" story and then keep presenting it to his staff to see if they would replace their understanding of the events with his. What is sad is the amount of denial that Nixon encountered at the end. He was trying so hard to justify his actions; I started to think that he was trying to change reality with his force of will.

Many of the conversations are very revealing and interesting. It makes me wonder, if at times, Nixon forgot he was being taped? I got a good understanding of why Nixon and his family fought so hard to keep the tapes private. In my opinion, these tapes have set back all the work Nixon did after leaving office to rebuild his reputation. It will help you if have read something else to give you some background on the conversations. Hopefully, this will not be the only book on the Watergate scandal that you read. Overall, the book is interesting and well written.

(..) The Journal of Southern History in the back of the book calls this an "unbiased prose". I can not believe how far from the truth that is. The book speaks of the Republican conservatives as militants and pro rich and anti poor. Paul Weyrich, a founder of the Heritage foundation in the early 70's is described specifically as a militant, yet it is interesting that James Carville and Paul Begala escape this label. Also Dick Morris is described as the brilliant tactician yet he is able to escape any moral qualifications, such as the famous immoral phone call with Clinton. Reagan and Bush are described as Presidents that gained success because they "exploited" the conservative mood of the country. They are described in the framework as men who are entirely in control of their success and failures, yet Clinton is described as the great synthesizer of circumstances that are out of his control. It is interesting the negative moral tone he attributes to Iran Contra of the Reagan Administration, yet when Whitewater is discussed it is pointed out that Clinton is faced with insidious attacks by the Republican Congress and that the Republicans are waiting in the wings, with the tone as though they circling vultures waiting for Clinton's imminent political death. He conveniently notes that there is no conclusive evidence in laying any guilt upon Clinton's involvement in Whitewater while leaving no mention that upon the outcome of Reagan's involvement in Iran Contra their was no proof that he contained any knowledge of the event. He pays considerable time and space to the desire of Reagan, Bush, the Christian Coalition, and the Moral Majority as being forces who are trying to infuse the issue of moral virtues on society, yet he fails to mention that due to the lack of interest of the Democratic party concerning morality that Clinton is the shining example of this moral complacency. He seems to view Clinton as this great Messiah. His election was the result of bringing back the Reagan Democrats into the party. He is a brilliant and shrewd politician that is able to effectively co-opt the Republicans and their agenda. He describes Clintons desire to govern at the center as a man who is trying to synthesize, yet fails to mention that another potential reason that he does this and this is a theory that is out there and also out during the time is that Clinton is someone who cares only about himself and his personal ambitions that are directly related to his moral depravity. He is a man who has no personal beliefs, heavily relies on focus groups in order to act at all so that he can attain personal glory in the spotlight. He is a man who, such as the Oslo accords, who needs to infuse himself into and be responsible for everything even though he played no role in the event. This just concerns morality. As far as the economy goes any jobs that are lost during the Reagan revelation are placed at the feet of Reaganomics, yet any jobs lost during the Clinton Administration are due to modernization and technological breakthroughs. Successes in the Reagan administration are qualified with rising debt, higher control of wealth by a fewer percentage of the population. Clinton on the other hand is a President who gains successes in spite of the Republicans that control congress. What were his successes according to Berman but higher taxes on the rich, an increase in minimum wage, welfare reform, and a booming economy? With more time and space quality counter arguments could easily be made to each. It is interesting how the welfare reform debate is framed in this book. It is framed as something that he wanted from the beginning and due to his desire for fairness he vetoed it twice due to Republican extremism and yet finally accepted it on the third time through with "reservations". Yet he fails to mention that as function of liberalism, one is effectively for everything. So, I would challenge Berman to find something that Clinton is not for. He speaks of symbolism of both Clinton and Reagan but fails to come to the conclusion that Reagan used Symbolism with Substance and Clinton used Symbolism without Substance, because Clinton is a man who would prefer to have the issue over the solution. I could go on and on and on.
The point here is not whether you agree with my views on Clinton or not, the point is that there are other views out there that Berman fails to explore. He needs to be more academically honest and analyze each Administration to the same standard. Instead, he continually holds the Republicans to one standard and fails to hold the Democrats to the same standard. It is clear that William C. Berman takes the predefining view in which Republicans are pro business, pro rich, malevolent men who need to be fought against by the Democrats, by such men as Clinton, who are pro labor, pro poor, pro minority and benevolent in their desires to create a better America. This book is a veiled academic propagandist piece that is bent to support that notion. I recommend this book to no one.

This book presents a good argument for why america turned right during the 60s and 70s ... I found it both interesting and informative. I would def. reccomend this book to anything interested in us history. i had to read this for a college history class and i honestly loved it

Granted, this book was written by some professors so it will not
be the best read in the world. However, the author's do a good
job of getting the main point of the book across -- that America
has become increasingly conservative since the early 1970's.
(Nixon would have fit in well with the Democrats today and Clinton certainly would have fit very comfortably with the Republicans in the 1970's). I thought the authors were pretty clear that the Clinton years (and all the scandals) could not yet be completed or analyzed (the book was written in 1998) and hindsight is usually needed when writing about history. In any event, the authors were not kind at all to the democrats of the 1960's and pretty much imply that the democratic party and its candidates in the 1970's was a wasteland -- look for comment on the Clinton scandals in the next edition. As far as the Reagan scandals (he told his lies and had his scandals too), I would try not to confuse objective analysis with a witch-hunt (conservatives think any criticism of Reagan is unwarranted, despite *his* scandals, and liberals do the same with Clinton and Kennedy). Rather, I suggest you
read this moderately interesting, rather short book with an open mind. (We all know about Clinton's scandals, but a pretty good objective analysis of a few of Reagan's blunders and scandals is Ambrose's Rise to Globalism).