We the People: v. 2

This text argues that constitutional change, seemingly so orderly, formal, and refined, has in fact been a revolutionary process from the first. The Founding Fathers not being the genteel conservatives of myth, set America on a course of revolutionary disruption and constitutional creativity that endures at the close of the millennium. Citing examples like the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, the Great Depression and the New Dealers the author shows how the constitution was changed by these events. He demonstrates how the American people have confronted the Constitution in its moments of crisis with dramatic acts of upheaval, always in the name of popular sovereignty. He also reveals how a "dualist democracy" provides for these populist upheavels that the Constitution, often without formalities. The book also sets contemporary events, such as the Reagan revolution and "Roe versus Wade", in deeper constitutional perspective and considers fundamental reforms that might resolve them.

Table of Contents:
Part 1 In the beginning: higher lawmaking; reframing the founding; the founding precedent. Part 2 Reconstruction: formalist dilemmas; presidential leadership; the convention/congress; thegreat transformation. Part 3 Modernity: from reconstruction to new deal; the missing amendments; rediscovery or creation?; reclaiming the constitution.

Review :
"We the People: Transformations" is a welcome return to a sort of constitutional and political history that is no longer fashionable in the academy, where social history is now ascendant. It is, in addition, a lively and informative read.--Adam Wolfson "Commentary " "We the People" offers a thoroughly researched, provocative, and passionate counterpoint to the now stale debate over original intent as a guide to constitutional understanding.--Kermit L. Hall "Journal of American History " [Bruce Ackerman's] particular constitutional focus is Article Five, that lays down the rules for the process of constitutional amendments, and how "We the people" have transformed the constitution in ways not laid down by such rules in the three most significant constitutional processes in American history: 1787, Reconstruction, and the New Deal...[This] book may serve as an instance of American Studies at its very best...Ackerman's analyses and arguments may at times be controversial but they are always clearly and convincingly expressed. Running through its narrative and serving to make it a compelling one is the story of how the United States has developed from a federation of states to a nation.--Orm Overland "American Studies in Europe " In an analysis which is by turns breezy, scholarly and impassioned, Ackerman investigates the origins of those 'transformative moments' in the past when the American people have engaged in a 'deepening institutional dialogue' with political elites to adapt and renew the United States Constitution, thereby reaffirming and extending popular sovereignty...The energy and learning with which its case is advanced make "Transformations" the most provocative intellectual history of constitutional issues published in many a year.--Peter Thompson "English Historical Review " It sounds rather, well, "unconstitutional" to say the Constitution can be ignored when great issues are at stake, so long as the People are on your side. But that concept, according to Mr. Ackerman, is the key to understanding our constitutional system...Mr. Ackerman is attempting [a] revolution in the way we look at constitutional law. It's a massive endeavor...[which] mates history and legal theory at a time when specialization has sent the two disciplines in different directions...[It has] drawn much praise--Sanford Levinson, of the University of Texas's law school, has called it 'The most important project now under way in the entire field of constitutional theory'...This is one professor, it's safe to say, who couldn't be accused of dodging the big questions.--Christopher Shea "The Chronicle of Higher Education " ÝBruce Ackerman's¨ particular constitutional focus is Article Five, that lays down the rules for the process of constitutional amendments, and how "We the people" have transformed the constitution in ways not laid down by such rules in the three most significant constitutional processes in American history: 1787, Reconstruction, and the New Deal...ÝThis¨ book may serve as an instance of American Studies at its very best...Ackerman's analyses and arguments may at times be controversial but they are always clearly and convincingly expressed. Running through its narrative and serving to make it a compelling one is the story of how the United States has developed from a federation of states to a nation. -- Orm Overland "American Studies in Europe" Two myths sustain the American people, Ackerman suggests. The first holds that the federal government consistently ignores the will of the people, whose mandate must constantly be pressed against its compromised and uncompromising leaders. The second is that our Constitution is so artfully constructed that changing it, for good or bad, is nearly impossible. Drawing on subtle legal argument and a solid command of history, Ackerman goes on to suggest that although the first scenario may seem to be accurate, the second is certainly not; governments have frequently bent the Constitution to serve their ideological ends...Readers well grounded in constitutional law will find Ackerman's arguments fascinating and provocative. It sounds rather, well, "unconstitutional to say the Constitution can be ignored when great issues are at stake, so long as the People are on your side. But that concept, according to Mr. Ackerman, is the key to understanding our constitutional system...Mr. Ackerman is attempting [a] revolution in the way we look at constitutional law. It's a massive endeavor...[which] mates history and legal theory at a time when specialization has sent the two disciplines in different directions...[It has] drawn much praise--Sanford Levinson, of the University of Texas's law school, has called it 'The most important project now under way in the entire field of constitutional theory'...This is one professor, it's safe to say, who couldn't be accused of dodging the big questions.