"An Introduction to Constitutional Law" Featured on Life, Liberty, & Levin

Our book shot to #4 on the Amazon.com best seller list, and is now completely sold out everywhere

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Last night, my co-author Randy Barnett appeared on Life, Liberty, & Levin on the Fox News Channel. Towards the end of the episode, he discussed our book, "An Introduction to Constitutional Law." Here is the segment:

Almost immediately after the segment, our book completely sold out on Amazon, and shortly thereafter, from our publisher.  Indeed, we shot up to #4 on the Amazon best-seller list. We were in front of Kobe Bryant and Jessica Simpson, but behind Elmo. (I am glad priorities are in place.)

As of now, there are no paperback books available, anywhere. Our publisher is making contingency plans. You can still buy the ebook from Kindle or from Vital Source (our recommendation.). If you have already purchased the book, please leave a review on Amazon.

Update: Our publisher has made a small quantity available for direct shipment. You can order here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Buttigieg Makes the Democratic Case for Cutting Debt

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. More interesting to me is how a book by Jessica Simpson is #6.

    1. She’s a promotional genius. She leaks out a juicy fact from that book every day and stays in the news.

  2. Interesting that the Trump-licking clinger being interviewed by Mr. Levin has the same name as a guy who described Mitt Romney’s impeachment vote as a point of “reasonable disagreement.”

    Also the same name as a guy who once said the election of Donald Trump by Republicans would merit the dismantling of the Republican Party.

    1. Nope, looks like he said it was “possible” there could be a “good faith disagreement.”

      I’ll agree it’s possible Mitt Romney’s vote was in good faith. It’s also possible it wasn’t. In either case, it’s not “reasonable.”

      1. To defend Romney, given the standards (very low) his vote was reasonable. Wrong, but reasonable.

        1. Disagree. While the constitutional “standard” by which a President can be impeached is indeed low to nonexistent, it wasn’t reasonable imo to vote that Trump should be impeached. Especially not for Romney’s stated justifications, which I suppose tend to bolster his good faith while undermining his reasonableness. On the other hand, a bad faith vote for impeachment could be quite reasonable at least on the face of it.

          1. The key phrase in your comment is “imo”.

            1. Guess so, but you forgot to include it in yours! Perhaps reasonable minds can differ on what reasonable minds can differ on.

        2. It’s hard to defend Romney’s vote since he said just a few days before the vote that more witnesses were needed for the Democrats to make their case, then he voted guilty anyway.

      2. Romney’s decision wasn’t some ethical choice but a calculation as preparation for something else, maybe as a replacement choice should Trump be unable to run for some reason. Or as VP on a dem ticket as the ultimate “southern state” type strategy writ large.

        1. Good thing you have such insights into Romney’s private mind.

  3. Congratulations to you and Prof. Barnett!

  4. “If you read this book, then you’ll know more than what most lawyers who graduated from law school know about the Constitution.”

    Wow. . . .

    1. Very true. At least if you read the book and thereby come to know most of its content.

    2. Note, he didn’t say labor law or some niche thing. That’s a dig at living constitutionalists, who, lets be frank, don’t care about what the constitution actually says unless it can be bent to their policy aims. Strange how many textualists suddenly appear on the left side of aisle when the 14th Amendment is discussed, but that disappears when discussion abortion or some such.

      And I think you have too high of an estimation of what they teach in law school, or of lawyers in general. Sure it’s anecdotal, but the most educated man I ever met had one year of college. His hobby was reading non-fiction books, not watching TV, etc. etc. He knew more of the constitution than many lawyers.

      1. “. . . but the most educated man I ever met had one year of college.”

        That actually says more about you that about him.

        1. I take Socrates’ wisdom here to your elitism: “I know that I know nothing”

      2. Everyone is a textualist first, the question is where you go after that, m_k.

        Autodidacts are great, but not being part of a community of practice cuts you out of a lot of the higher level engagements with the state of the art.

        1. “Everyone is a textualist first…”

          That, my friend, is an a priori assertion that can be made into a falsifiable statement that I urge you to test. .

          And specialization is for insects.

          1. You are the one claiming it’s false. Give it a go.

            1. That’s not how science, and even debate works, you make a claim, you provide the evidence. Lo siento.

              1. The most egregious a priori assertion in this thread is your claim that all living constitutionalists don’t care what the constitution actually says.

                1. Not what I said. I said that living constitutinalists don’t care about the Constitution says “unless it can be bent to their policy aims.” Which mean, by logic, that they do care what it says because it can possibly be bent to the policy aims.

                  Of course, if it doesn’t say that they want it to say, then they disregard as necessary.

      3. Note, he didn’t say labor law or some niche thing. That’s a dig at living constitutionalists,…

        I’m not going to watch an embedded FoxNews video, but I doubt that’s correct. I suspect Randy’s point is more about the wishy-washy elective curriculum most law students will have completed by the time they graduate. I understand that some law schools are even making constitutional law optional, these days…

        …who, lets be frank, don’t care about what the constitution actually says unless it can be bent to their policy aims….

        Well, let’s frank, there’s nothing about putatively “originalist” methods of interpreting the constitution that prevents their practitioners from reaching their own policy aims. Never mind that “originalist” methods of constitutional interpretation, whatever their merits in themselves, end up being poorly-suited to constitutional theory, which must make sense of a whole body of caselaw you can’t just wave away because you’re Randy Barnett.

        And I think you have too high of an estimation of what they teach in law school, or of lawyers in general. Sure it’s anecdotal, but the most educated man I ever met had one year of college. His hobby was reading non-fiction books, not watching TV, etc. etc. He knew more of the constitution than many lawyers.

        How did you evaluate this man’s “education”?

        Being an auto-didact myself, I’m not actually that skeptical, but I can speak from experience when I say that it is very, very easy to become misled down intellectual dead-ends and into theories and philosophies that are never sufficiently or properly challenged, when you’re really your only guide.

        1. Let me respond to your points:

          1) Yes, so it was a dig, but because you are not a fan of origninalist or know any thing about Mark Levin the interviewer, you won’t see it as such. And I also noted in my first comment the failure of law schools, so thanks for reiterating my point.

          2) Oh, don’t get me wrong, originalists backwash their constitional interpretation/reasoning to a policy goal too. But at least they start with the text and the original intent. When you’re unmoored from that, you can go anywhere.

          3) Because he said things that ended up being right when either I looked them up, and/or he predicted things that ended up being right in both the near and short term. He’s left this mortal coil now though, so any examples are from the past.

    3. They’ll know more than the judges that believe qualified immunity is a thing.

      1. You don’t change stuff you don’t like by yelling it doesn’t exist and anyone who thinks it does is educated stupid.

  5. His answer on the definition of Originalism was fantastic.

    1. “Fantastic,” as in full of fantasy?

      1. He’s right and you know it.

        1. Yep, that’s the full substance of the originalist argument around here.

          Empty contradiction followed by telepathy.

          1. Don’t forget the pseudo-historical analysis.

            1. Only from the actual Conspirators. In the comments, they can’t be arsed to even do that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.