List price: $20.00 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $10.47
Buy one from zShops for: $11.95
Used price: $3.95
Collectible price: $4.99
Used price: $1.87
Collectible price: $15.00
Used price: $0.89
Collectible price: $4.24
Buy one from zShops for: $3.95
Bottom line: if you want a good look into how money really corrupts our politicians, and a glimpse into how much power the interest groups have, read this book.
List price: $39.95 (that's 30% off!)
Buy one from zShops for: $26.90
List price: $10.95 (that's 20% off!)
Used price: $5.00
Buy one from zShops for: $7.23
Unfortunately Bill Quain talked too much. He called all other distribution systems evil. He says that when you buy at discount, you "create liabilities" and these shops "create wealth", while when you "shop smarter, not cheaper", you "create assets" on your way to financial freedom -- whatever the product is.
He talked endlessly about this, I snapped out of the spell.
On the plus side, though. The book discusses tricks merchandisers use to increase sales. It also convinced me that saving my time is more valuable than saving a few dollars in discount stores. Indeed, rich people spend their time creating assets, not liabilities. They invest their time. For that lesson I give this book two stars.
At first, I thought this book would be some good tidbits of info and then lots of fluff. Thankfully, there is more good information than fluff by a long shot. Great Book.
Used price: $9.97
Goldwin argues that Madison's principal purpose in proposing the Bill of Rights was political. Madison, Goldwin says, was concerned about Anti-Federalist opposition to the Constitution and the risk that the Anti-Federalists would succeed in calling a second constitutional convention that might undo all of the important structural features of the Constitution. Goldwin believes that Madison hoped to steal the Anti-Federalists' thunder by offering amendments whose substance was uncontroversial, but whose inclusion would help solidify support for the new Constitution in a public that was still nervous about the way it centralized national power.
Goldwin reinforces his argument about Madison's political motivations by suggesting that Madison regarded a Bill of Rights as being practically useless in preventing governments from encroaching on the liberties of its citizens. Instead, according to the author, Madison thought that the structural elements of the Constitution (separation of powers, bicameral legislature, etc.) afforded the best mechanism for securing rights against infringement by the majority. Goldwin goes so far as to suggest repeatedly that Madison was willing to propose a Bill of Rights precisely because he believed it would "leave the original Constitution unchanged . . . ." (p. 101; see also p. 153).
Goldwin may be right about Madison's political motivations in proposing a Bill of Rights; others have drawn similar conclusions. But the author's positive assessment of Madison's ideas about the intrinsic inefficacy of a Bill of Rights is unpersuasive. If Madison truly believed that including specific restraints on governmental power in a written constitution would do little directly to advance the cause of freedom, and that the Constitution as originally written would serve those ends well, in my view he was fundamentally mistaken. It is certainly true that the will of the majority would be frustrated less often if we had no Bill of Rights, or if the Judiciary had no power to enforce its provisions. But it is precisely for that reason that the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights would have been less secure if they had never been made a part of the Constitution.
In light of the widely held contemporary view that the Bill of Rights is an essential (even if sometimes misused) restraint on governmental power, this book would have been better if, instead of uncritically praising Madison's contrary view, Goldwin had subjected it to searching analysis. Madison's view of the role of the judiciary in enforcing the Bill of Rights, a subject not even broached in this book, would in my view be central to such an analysis. Raoul Berger pointed out in an article written several years ago that during the debates over the ratification of the original Constitution in Virginia, Madison joined John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) in maintaining that the Judiciary had this power. And in his speech to the First Congress proposing a Bill of Rights, Madison (echoing Jefferson's sentiments in a letter written to him from France) asserted that "independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights." Madison's support for some form of judicial review is also evidenced in statements he made in the Philadelphia Convention and in The Federalist Nos. 39 and 44. Since Madison believed that the courts would have a large responsibility for enforcing the Bill of Rights, then a question which needs to be addressed is why he nevertheless regarded the amendments as a mere "parchment barrier." And what makes the other, structural elements of the Constitution which Madison looked to as the main protector of our liberties (e.g., separation of powers, limitation of Congress to enumerated powers) anything more than "parchment barriers" themselves? Finally, it would have been useful to consider not only what Madison thought immediately before and after the formation of the Constitution, but also the extent to which his views may have changed as he observed the Constitution in operation over the course of his long political career.
I also think that Goldwin's insistence that both the Federalists (including Madison) and the Anti-Federalists believed that the Amendments "changed nothing in the Constitution" (p. 177) is misleading. This characterization not only distorts the views of both groups and obscures their important philosophic differences, but also trivializes the subtantive import of the Bill of Rights. How can it be said, for example, that the privilege against self-incrimination set forth in the Fifth Amendment "changed nothing," when in its absence Congress would have been able to compel the defendant to testify in a federal criminal proceeding?
List price: $15.95 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $5.94
Collectible price: $10.54
Buy one from zShops for: $10.95
Used price: $1.78
Buy one from zShops for: $1.77