Without a doubt, Leonard William Levy has produced the finest argument against the doctrine of original intent that I have ever read. As a liberal working in Washington, DC, I have long been bothered by conservative criticism that our judiciary has been over-run by "judicial activists." In my attempts to understand the issue, I have read many accounts of what is supposedly wrong with the idea of an "evolutionary constitution," and found them interesting and compelling and was beginning to think that I had made a terrible mistke in terms of my political outlook.

Granted, much of that can be accounted for by the fact that the only things I was able to find about "original intent" were written by the likes of Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, both of whom subscribe to this theory. But then I discovered Levy's book and found that the theories of Bork et al. were not all they were cracked up to be.

Levy is a Pulitizer Prize winning historian who examines the birth of our Consititution in amazing detail, citing the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist pamphlets, state constitutions and ratifying conventions and presents a clear view of the state of our nation even as if was being formed. His insight is so far beyond the pseudo-history offered up by Bork and his ilk that it is almost embarrassing to think that men of such intellects could be so sorrily mistaken. With chapters on the main areas of debate within the Constitution iteself, and others covering the Frist, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments, Levy gives us a very clear picture of just what has happening at the time the Constitution was being debated and ratified.

The three final chapters are, by far, the most impressive deconstruction of the theory of "original intent" I have ever encountered. In fact, I would recommend that the reading of these final chapters alone offers up more insight and better arguments than anything else ever written.

While at times the reader can get bogged down in details, it is the fact that Levy knows and includes them all that makes this work so extremely valuable. The writing is clear and entertaining and Levy has no problem telling those who subscribe to the doctrine of "original inent" that they have "the historical imagination of a toad."

In all, Levy has crafted a solid, insightful and entertaining book that I can not recommend highly enough.

Debates keep raging and struggles re-surfacing over the original intentions of the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution: this provides an argument by constitutional scholar Levy, who rejects the views of both left and right sides in examining sources of constitutional law and cases supporting original intent. Recommended for college-level political science students.

'Phaedrus' is the first work ever to provide an explanation to how we organise our ideas, speeches and use our knowledge in a general sense. It explains the basics of an arguing and convincing, within the context of Greek politics and society.

As I said, it's division and gathering that is evident in all of our arguments. We make our claims based upon the similarities and differences in things, and this is the core of argumentation.

In his dialogue style, Plato talks about many other things, that range from what makes a good writing a good one, to the heritance of knowledge. How should knowledge be attained from others? How should we present our knowledge for new generations to understand us? These are some of the questions that come up in Phaedrus.

Plato, one of the clearest writers in philosophy, wrote yet another beautiful work. I've started reading Plato when I was thirteen, and I really enjoy reading his works, which just flow.

I recommend not only this book, but almost any book of Plato's, for all philosophy lovers out there, and all those that would like to make their first attempt in understanding some philosophical issues, which build the base of our living.

In Phaedrus, Plato records the conversation of love and rhetoric between Socrates and Phaedrus. Socrates uses love as a metaphor for rhetoric by categorizing the differences between love and lust, as well as the differences between a philosopher who pursues divine truth, and a poet who forgoes truth for ostentations. Then Socrates and Phaedrus eventually conclude the requirements for being a dialectician. In the course of defending proper love and truth, Socrates pointes out that beauty and truth are divine. Whoever pursues reality would worship beauty and truth with reverence, and his admirations of divinities yield pleasures. Then in order to receive the blessing from gods, the proper lover and the philosopher must overcome desires with reasoning. Conversely, those commoners who are tempted by earthy imitations of the reality would be trapped by carnal or linguistic pleasures, as the improper lover and the poet, who lack reasoning would drown in the momentary enjoyments of their own wantonness.

I read this in summer 2002 in its original 1969 hardcover (remaindered by a public library) and I am glad it's still available. Mr. Levy's book covers the period from Magna Carta to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, and reveals that all the criminal rights we take for granted didn't spring full-grown from the Founding Fathers' heads but evolved through 500 years of common law. (The Founding Fathers did capture it in written, not just traditional common law, however). The right against self-incrimination, to not be compelled to testify against yourself, to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations against you, the rule of law over government itself -- all developed long before our Revolution and were well-rooted in England by the 16th Century.

Mr. Levy tells a vivid story, peopled with mighty figures like John Lilburne, the Puritan who faced down the Court of Star Chamber, and Sir Edward Coke, a jurist of that time who could declare to an arbitrary king that "Magna Charta is such a fellow that he will have no sovereign."

Mr. Levy also gives us a sense of how unique the Anglo-American common law -- the evolution of law built on cases, not just statutes -- is compared to its Roman and Napoleonic counterparts on the European continent. I read this before beginning law school in fall 2002 and this book was considerably helpful in Crim. Law and Crim. Procedure, where the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments suffuse police and criminal process in the U.S.

Ordinary people, not just lawyers, will find this book timely given the current trend to brush off this longstanding heritage in the name of temporary wartime security. It's good to read of the deep roots of our law, and of its barrier between the individual and arbitrary official power.

These essays on the history of the law provide a wide range ofinsights; from the early Ranters who confronted moral laws in Englandto modern-day anecdotes about the Supreme Court. From a debate with Harvard University Press over the publication of his book on blasphemy to essays covering the origins of amendments, this provides an excellent set of legal experiences.

Where did our constitutional rights come from? Why are they written the way they are? Were they original, or did our Founding Fathers get the ideas elsewhere? These questions and more will be answered in Levy's Origins of the Bill of Rights.

I'll begin with the weaknesses and get them out of the way. I'm not a constitutional historian, nor am I a lawyer. Although I think I'm somewhat knowledgeable, Levy could have introduced his terms better, particularly when he devotes a chapter to them. Habeas Corpus, for instance. The lawyers out there are now laughing at my ignorance, but I had to think and carefully recall exactly what that means. Law is precise, so history of law might consider being equally precise. Also, when citing cases, Levy sometimes left it unclear what the case was about.

References. Somehow, despite almost forty pages of documents in the appendix, Levy manages to not quite every actually list the amendments in their final form, despite reproducing the English Bill of Rights, the Virginia Bill of Rights, and the various House and Senate versions. All right, this is easy information to find, but would it have hurt for the book to be self-contained?

For those who care, the third and tenth amendments are barely mentioned.

Style. I'm transitioning into the good points, since one person's good style is another's bad. The middle of the book heavily emphasizes case histories, both in America and in England. Sometimes this is to the detriment of readability. If you're just reading this book out of curiosity, some philosophical discussion might be nice. If you're looking for names and dates of trials, then this is useful of course. It doesn't completely dry the book out, but it does make it drag a bit, at least for my tastes.

So what's good about it?

What's good is that Levy points out, thoroughly and conscientiously that we have rights. We, the people. Me. You. The neighbor down the street. These rights come from somewhere, and they go back a long way. To those who want to know what the original intents were of the authors of the constitution, this is a place to look. Do you think that the second amendment only arms the National Guard? Wrong! Do you think that the government can give religions all sorts of special treatment as long as it doesn't pick a favorite? Wrong! Do you think that a right doesn't exist unless it is specified exactly, spelled out in intricate detail? Wrong! To liberals who cover their ears when the second amendment is discussed, and conservatives who are in open revolt against many of the others, read this book. Or read another one, but this one is the subject of the review. Frankly, you may be surprised at what they thought back in the olden days.

Well written and interesting. This book gives a wonderful historical perspective of the laws, practices, and history that led up to the framing of the Bill of Rights. With careful study, Levy has built a window into the politics, thoughts, and fears that led to the inclusion of the BOR and includes many examples of the reasons that they were included. Well written and entertaining, this lesson in American history reads like series of short stories.

The upset with politicians today is nothing new. "Origins.." puts a human history face on the Bill of Rights. Amazing that our country has retained the original hopes of our founders. Levy is excellent in his description and inspiration.

This book is essential reading for anyone who is interested in the history of the First Amendment. Levy is the starting point for debate on what freedom of the press meant to the framers of the first amendment. Levy contends that the framers had a very limited conception of freedom of the press, and presents a wealth of evidence of suppression of press freedoms in colonial America. There is a wealth of interesting information in this book, although it is not casual reading by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, many scholars have criticized Levy for ignoring both the actual practices of colonial printers--who behaved as if they were quite free despite the law--and for ignoring the philosophical contributions of English Whig thinkers to the American conception of press freedom. In my view, you have to start with Levy if you are interested in this topic, but you shouldn't stop with him.

With attempts by our current President to allow federal funds to go to religious charities, a better understanding of the history and meaning of the First Amendment is desparately needed. One could hardly be better qualified to give us such an education than Leonard W. Levy in his book on the Establishment Clause.

In his book, Levy refutes the nonpreferentialists' claim that the First Amendment clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," merely prohibits Congress from providing preferential aid to one church. If "an establishment of religion" meant only single-church establishments, Congress would only be prohibited from exclusively benefiting one church but not prohibited from aiding religion impartially. But, as Levy points out, history does not support the nonpreferentialists' interpretation.

Although the five southern colonies did have exclusive Anglical establishments, the colonies of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire came to have multiple religious establishments, and, indeed, the colonies of Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey never had establishments of any kind. After the Revolution, opposition to establishments increased, resulting in states having to replace their exclusive or dual establishments or even ending their establishments altogether. Thus, the historical fact of multiple establishments of religion contradicts the nonpreferentialists' interpretation that "an establishment of religion" referred only to single-church establishments, and, therefore, does not support their claim that the establishment clause only prohibits Congress from making laws preferring one church. Nor is their interpretation supported by the debates between the Federalists and Anti-federalists.

Anti-federalists feared loss of liberty and pressured Federalists to accept recommendations for amendments to the new Constitution, which included protection of religious liberty. But Federalists countered that such amendments were superfluous because, as Levy succinctly restates the argument, "[T]he unamended Constitution vests no power over religion." Moreover, Madison stated in an October 17, 1788 letter to Jefferson that these amendments ought to be "so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration." Thus, Levy concludes, "To argue, as the nonpreferentialists do, that the establishment clause should be construed to permit nondiscriminatory aid to religion leads to the impossible conclusion that the First Amendment added to the powers of Congress even though it was framed to restrict Congress. It is not only an impossible conclusion; it is ridiculous."

From his demolition of the nonpreferentialists' interpretation of the establishment clause and his statement in the Preface that his "sympathies are clearly with the separationists," one might conclude that Levy is a strict advocate of an impregnable wall of separation between church and state. However, he is not. Of zealous separationists who interpret every crack in the wall as disaster, Levy says, "[They are] like Chicken Little, screaming, 'The wall is falling, the wall is falling.' It really is not and will not, so long as it leaks just a little at the seams. If it did not leak a little, pressure on the wall might generate enough force to break it."

Examples of leaks which Levy feels need not be repaired are the Supreme Court beginning its sessions with "God save this honorable Court," the money motto "In God We Trust," the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, tax-supported chaplains for military and legislative bodies, etc. Although Levy is aware of the concern of separationists that "big oaks grow from small acorns," he invokes for "trivial" leaks an aphorism which was also advocated by Madison: "De minimis non curat lex" ("The law does not bother with trifles"). A more controversial leak, however, is Levy's advocacy of tax aid for parochial schools.

Although he agrees that the "claim of 'double taxation' is a misnomer," he asserts that the Supreme Court "ought to relieve the burden of so called double taxation on those who pay to send their children to private school." He also says, "If proper restraints exist on the funds for parochial schools so that tax monies are not spent for religious purposes, and the aid rendered is comparable to the value of the secular education provided by the schools, fairness seems to be on the accomodationist side." To say the least, Levy's leaky wall is problematic. It is impossible that parochial school aid would not set free additional dollars for sectarian indoctrination, and the idea that, with "proper restraints," taxpayers' dollars could be secure from misuse is too good to be true.

In the course of discussing establishment-clause cases, Levy amuses his reader with some pot shots at the High Court. He says, for example, that "the Court has managed to unite those who stand at polar opposites on the results that the Court reaches: a strict separationist and zealous accommodationist are likely to agree that the Supreme Court would not recognize an establishment of religion if it took life and bit the Justices."

Levy obviously writes with passion, and his scholarship is as good as his views are controversial. Notwithstanding my disagreement with him over parochial school aid, I found his book both provoking and educational.

Jefferson is often praised for his writings on personal freedom, democracy, and civil liberties. This book exposes the complexity of Jefferson. In other words, he did not really practice what he preached. He was a champion of civil liberties on paper, but not in practice.

As President of the United States, he showed a disturbing disregard for basic civil liberties. He showed reckless disregard for the 4th amendment ban on unreasonable search and seizure, and he was no friend of the first amendment and a free press when he was attacked by oppostion newspapers.

Those who worship Jefferson will find this book disturbing. Some will even call it a hatchet job. I disagree. Although Levy does attack Jefferson on civil liberties, he praises Jefferson's strong stand on separation of church and state.

Although Levy is a professional historian, this book should appeal to non-academics. It is a quick read and it makes a strong (and controversial) point without going into mind numbing detail. It is nice to read some history with an edge.

Finally, we can admire the principles that Jefferson stood for while acknowledging that he was far from perfect. I think that is the broader point of this book.

Were it not for the digressions into post-modernist chic, I might be able to give a more resounding endorsement. Nevertheless, Levy did successfully acquaint the reader with the common court precedents for blasphemy in British law, while furnishing modern examples such as the 1976 blasphemy trial of a homosexual poet. Though the traditional branding, mutilation, and execution of blasphemers has stopped in modern-day Britain, Levy points out that the Anglican Church has argued for an extension of the outmoded blasphemy laws to other religions in the wake of the Rushdie affair. Rather than forego the Church of England's privileged status altogether, the Archbishop of Canterbury proposed the use of government coercion to protect all flights of lunatic fancy from their deserved ridicule. Needless to say, the lack of separation of Church and State in Europe, and the diluted freedom of speech provided by speech codes (e.g. laws against the expression of unpopular speech, such as Holocaust denial) surely constitute an important area of debate as far as the limitations of freedom. At present, the only US equivalent I can think of is the attempts to mold hate crimes legislation. Though certainly justice demands proper sanctions for those who violate the rights of others, this acts to punish criminals on the basis of their beliefs rather than actions. What next? Love crimes legislation that reduce a person's sentence if the jury thought they were acting for a more socially acceptable cause?

I assume from the first reviewer of this book that he hates to admit that evil has been done in the name of Christianity. He has a hard time seeing it done today, because we have a seperation of church and state. Look, this book may come as a shock to many Christian readers, but these are facts we can't deny. For example, America is a beautiful country, but in our history there is racism (KKK), the Civil War and the brutal murder of gay student, Matt Shepard. The same goes true for any other organization/country. What ever has done good, has done bad too.

This book provides a very detailed, factual account of people being killed in the name of Christianity from it's inception up to the present. You read about mennonites (anabaptists) getting executed by Protestants and Catholics, Jews being stripped of their Civil Rights, and everyone else who didn't take Jesus as their saviour. It is truly sick and stupid that the laws in those days prosecuted someone just because of a difference of opinion, espeically religious. How gruesome and brutal were Christians to people who differed with them on an opinion? Well, picture you are a Muslim, and preaching the Koran on the streets of England. First the government burns your books, since they are not pro-Christian. Second, you get whipped over 300 times until you have no flesh on your body. Third offense, you will get your tongue cut off, a "B" burned into your skin for "blasphemer", exiled or executed. Isn't that a good reason, and why our founding fathers established a seperation between church and state?

This is a good book, though very long. But, hey it's a history book, right?

This volume is far from the author's best work. It was, in fact, a disappointing read. In some places, it was simply inaccurate. In others, the author made statements that needed support - but he declined to use either end notes or foot notes, so we the readers can't check. I believe he wrote this book for casual readers, not serious readers or students.