The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Recent Books on the Constitution
My seminar picks for 2023 (and every year since 2005).
Each fall, I teach a seminar called Recent Books on the Constitution. I initially designed this course when I visited Georgetown in 2005. At that time, because I tend to read what relates directly to my current projects, I felt that I was not keeping up with the literature. By assigning recent books on the Constitution to read as part of my teaching, I would actually read them. This has really worked for me. I have now read a lot of books on the Constitution. The complete list of all the books I have assigned is below.
Since 2005, I have assigned 90 books by 83 authors, with Sandy Levinson, Gerard Magliocca, Eric Segall, Dan Farber, Philip Hamburger, Kim Roosevelt, and David Bernstein each making more than 1 appearances. Four books were assigned in manuscript before publication. This fall, I am assigning a portion of my book Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People, which is not as recent as The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit but relates more closely to the other books the students will read. Here are this year's 5 recent books:
James Fleming, Constructing Basic Liberties: A Defense of Substantive Due Process (2022)
Paul Moreno, How the Court Became Supreme: The Origins of American Juristocracy (2022)
Vincent Philip Munoz, Religious Liberty and the American Founding (2022)
Justin Dyer & Kody Cooper, The Classical and Christian Origins of American Politics (2022)
Kermit Roosevelt, The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America's Story (2022)
I select books I think I ought to read–either because of the subject or the author. I then hold off reading them myself so I can read them at the same time as the students. This enables me to react to the books along with them, and for me to remember the nuances of the books for class discussion.
The seminar format is to read 6 books, taking 2 weeks on each book, with the author coming to the class during the second week to discuss the book. The first book is now always one of mine to use as a trial run and to give the students an idea of where I am coming from when we discuss the other books. When books are longer than 250 pages, I ask the author to tell me which 250 pages I should assign. If I assign much more than 125 pages per week, I fear the students won't read them, or won't read them carefully enough. To help assure that they do, students submit one-page summaries of each half of the book (graded pass-fail). On the day before the author's visit, they submit a 5500 character critique of the book, which I send to the author electronically the day before class. (They all read them.) When the class ends, there is no exam or paper for the students to write or for me to grade. We are done!
Students consistently tell me that the course is extremely enriching, and helps them develop their critical skills. It is also empowering for them to see how well they are able to find the holes in a professor's book-length presentation. I find that, collectively, the students are able to nail the weaknesses of every book (except mine, of course).
[Note to law professors: I have a budget to pay for the authors' travel expenses. But now that we all have access to Zoom teaching, this seminar format can be replicated anywhere at zero cost. Wouldn't it be great if there were a dozen or more such book seminars around the country? Try it. I promise you will love it.]
If you click on READ MORE you will see why teaching this class has been enormously rewarding for me. Offer my heartfelt thanks to all these authors for trekking to DC to discuss their books with my students.
2022:
- Helen Norton, The Government's Speech and the Constitution (2020)
- Aziz Huq, The Collapse of Constitutional Remedies (2021)
- David Bernstein, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America (2022)
- Stuart Banner, The Decline of Natural Law: How American Lawyers Once Used Natural Law and Why they Stopped (2021)
- Philip Hamburger, Purchasing Submission: Conditions, Power, and Freedom (2021)
2021:
- Ilan Wurman, The Second Founding: An Introduction to the 14th Amendment (2020)
- Stephen Halbrook, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right of the People or a Privilege of the Ruling Class? (2021)
- Donald Drakeman, The Hollow Core of Constitutional Theory: Why We Need the Framers (2021)
- Jamal Greene, How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession With Rights is Tearing America Apart (2021)
- David Schwartz, The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland (2019)
2020:
- Paul Finkelman, Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation's Highest Court (2017)
- Eric Segall, Originalism as Faith (2018)
- Greg Weiner, The Political Constitution: The Case Against Judicial Supremacy (2019)
- Robert Ross, The Framers' Intentions: The Myth of the Nonpartisan Constitution (2019)
- Jack Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (2020)
2019:
- Neal Devins, The Company They Keep: How Partisan Divisions Came to the Supreme Court (2019)
- Larry Lessig, Fidelity & Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution (2019)
- Jonathan Gienapp, The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era (2018)
- Rebecca Zietlow, The Forgotten Emancipator: James Mitchell Ashley and the Ideological Origins of Reconstruction (2017)
- Lee Strang, Originalism's Promise: A Natural Law Account of the American Constitution (2019)
2018:
- Martha Jones, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America (2018)
- John Compton, The Evangelical Origins of the Living Constitution (2014)
- Josh Chafetz, Congress's Constitution: Legislative Authority and the Separation of Powers (2017)
- Adam Carrington, Justice Stephen Field's Cooperative Constitution of Liberty: Liberty in Full (2017)
- Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (2018)
2017:
- Barry Friedman, Unwarranted: Policing Without Permission (2017)
- Bruce Frohnen & George Carey, Constitutional Morality and the Rise of Quasi-Law (2016)
- Geoffrey R. Stone, Sex and the Constitution (2017)
- Suja Thomas, The Missing American Jury (2016)
- Thomas G. West, The Political Theory of the American Founding (2017)
2016:
- Carson Holloway, Hamilton versus Jefferson in the Washington Administration: Completing the Founding or Destroying the Founding? (2015)
- Michael Paulsen & Luke Paulsen, The Constitution: An Introduction (2015)
- Thomas Leonard, Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era (2016)
- Tara Smith, Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System (2015)
- Ilya Somin, The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain (2015)
2015:
- Damon Root, Over Ruled: The Long War for the Control of the U.S. Supreme Court (Palgrave 2014)
- F.H. Buckley, The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America (Encounter 2014)
- Brad Snyder, The House of Truth (Oxford 2017) (assigned ms)
- Stephen Garbaum, The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism (Cambridge 2013)
- Laura Donohue, The Future of Foreign Intelligence (Chicago 2016) (assigned ms)
2014:
- Clark Neily, Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution's Promise of Limited Government (Encounter 2013)
- Thomas Healy, The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changes His Mind – and the History of Free Speech in America (Metropolitan Books, 2013)
- John McGinnis & Michael Rappaport, Originalism and the Good Constitution (Harvard 2013)
- Stephen Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard 2013)
- Garrett Epps, American Epic: Reading the U.S. Constitution (Oxford 2013)
- Louis Michael Seidman, On Constitutional Disobedience (Oxford 2012)
2012 (Fall):
- Gerard Magliocca, John Bingham: America's Founding Son (NYU, 2013) (assigned ms)
- Akhil Reed Amar, America's Unwritten Constitution (Basic Books, 2012)
- John Inazu, Liberty's Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly (Yale 2012)
- Justice Antonin Scalia, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (West, 2012)
- Abner Greene, Against Obligation (Harvard 2012)
- Sandy Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford 2012)
2012 (Spring)
- Michael J. Gerhardt, The Power of Precedent (Oxford 2008)
- Robert Bennett & Lawrence Solum, Constitutional Originalism (Cornell 2011)
- Gary L McDowell, The Language of Law & the Foundations of American Constitutionalism (Cambridge 2010)
- Eric Segall, Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court Is Not a Court and Its Justices Are Not Judges (Praeger 2012)
- Michael Greve, The Upside-Down Constitution (Harvard 2012)
- Alexander Tsesis, The Thirteenth Amendment and American Freedom (NYU 2004)
2011:
- H. Jefferson Powell, Constitutional Conscience (Chicago, 2008)
- Jeremy A Rabkin, Law Without Nations? (Princeton, 2005)
- Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns (Cambridge, 2007)
- Timothy Sandefur, The Right to Earn a Living (Cato Institute, 2010)
- Sonu Bedi, Rejecting Rights (Cambridge, 2009)
- Alison LaCroix, The Ideological Origins of American Federalism (Harvard, 2010)
2010:
- David Bernstein, Rehabilitating Lochner (Chicago 2011) (assigned ms)
- Brian Tamanaha, The Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton, 2009)
- Earl Maltz, Slavery and the Supreme Court, 1825-1861 (Kansas, 2009)
- Michael Vorenberg, Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment (Cambridge, 2004)
- George Thomas,The Madisonian Constitution (Johns Hopkins, 2008)
- David Strauss, The Living Constitution (Oxford, 2010)
2007:
- Alex Aleinikoff, Semblances of Sovereignty: The Constitution, the State, and American Citizenship (Harvard, 2002)
- Dan Farber, Retained by the People: The "Silent" Ninth Amendment and the Constitutional Rights Americans Don't Know They Have (Perseus, 2007)
- Jim Fleming, Securing Constitutional Democracy: The Case of Autonomy (Chicago, 2006)
- Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge, 2006)
- Keith Whittington, Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History (Princeton, 2007)
2006:
- Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State (Harvard, 2002)
- Kermit Roosevelt, The Myth of Judicial Activism: Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions (Yale, 2006)
- Elizabeth Price Foley, Liberty for All: Reclaiming Individual Privacy in a New Era of Public Morality (Yale, 2006)
- John Yoo, The Powers of War and Peace : The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11 (Chicago, 2005)
- Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It) (Oxford, 2006)
2005 (Taught when I was a visitor at Georgetown. Only Mark Tushnet, who was then still on the Georgetown faculty, appeared. His class visit gave me the idea to invite all the authors in the future):
- Mark Tushnet, Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts (Princeton, 2000)
- Cass R. Sunstein, One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court (Harvard, 2001)
- Larry D. Kramer, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (Oxford, 2004)
- Daniel A. Farber, Suzanna Sherry, Desperately Seeking Certainty: The Misguided Quest for Constitutional Foundations (Chicago, 2004)
- James R. Stoner, Common Law Liberty: Rethinking American Constitutionalism (Kansas, 2003)
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Paul Moreno, How the Court Became Supreme: The Origins of American Juristocracy (2022)"
When is the movie coming out?
Seven authors this year; how many are conservatives?
Why not be honest and call the course Recent Conservative Books on the Constitution?
When will Heterodox Academy opine on this?
Carry on, clingers.
By my count, 45 books on the complete list--almost half of the total--are by authors who are not conservative. Many of those authors *and books* are distinctly liberal or left. You have focused on the identity of the authors rather than the content of the books, but I would say a few books on the list are by liberal authors, but their politics weren't a key element of the book, although they were affected by it around the edges. In fairness, it is possible the same is true of some of the books on the list penned by people I roughly identified as conservative. This year's list leans "conservative," again leaving aside the actual content of the books, but other years leaned (60 to 80 percent) "liberal."
Leftist, not "liberal" -- there IS a difference.
I picked two years at or near the midpoint of that list, 2016 and 2015.
2016:
Carson Holloway (Claremont Institute, Law & Liberty, the Federalist)
Michael Paulsen (Federalist Society favorite)
Thomas C. Leonard (Manhattan Institute, Hayek Prize finalist)
Tara Smith (Ayn Rand Institute, Federalist Society)
Ilya Somin (Volokh Conspiracy, Federalist Society)
2015:
Damon Root (Reason, Federalist Society, Georgetown Law and Public Policy)
F.H. Buckley (Trump speechwriter, a clinger’s clinger)
Brad Snyder (can’t find much about his politics)
Stephen Gar(d)baum (difficult to pin down, varying indications)
Laura Donohue (Federalist Society, Georgetown/Barnett’s Constitution Center)
Would a comprehensive review’s results differ substantially from those of the three-year sample?
You can see my comprehensive review above. For what it's worth, you might want to actually take a closer look at Prof. Donohue's record, her published work, and her amicus commitments. I do not find it hard to pin down Prof. Gardbaum's general politics (for whatever that is actually worth). Brad Snyder I identify, confidently, as liberal--admittedly a protean term and not much more helpful than "conservative." But he is one of the authors whose politics I would say are not front and center in his books, although certainly they are present here and there in his excellent Frankfurther biography. To take a non-representative sample: the authors on the long list include Aziz Huq, Mark Tushnet, Larry Kramer, Cass Sunstein, David Strauss, Jeff Powell, Mike Seidman, Eric Segall, Jeff Stone, Helen Norton, Jamal Greene....This list is really not the confirmation you may think it is.
She is a senior scholar at Prof. Barnett's constitution center. She spoke at a Federalist Society faculty conference (part of a series of Federalist Society appearances). She appears to be an originalist.
If she is not conservative, she is masking it quite well.
If you are familiar with her, and able to indicate that she is not a conservative, I would welcome the information.
I would hate for this whole discussion and my general point—that Prof. Barnett has certainly invited plenty of conservative authors but the list of authors on the whole makes your characterization of it uncharitable, at the least—turn on one name on the list, given the ten others I offered you. But regardless: Prof. Donohue has published 24 law review articles, *two* of which employ originalism and both in service of a “liberal” reading of the Fourth Amendment. Most of her scholarship is non-originalist and argues for civil liberties and privacy rights and against the dangers of governmental power in the area of national security, particularly in the post-9/11 context. Her CV does not fly the flag of the Federalist Society, which has probably hosted two thirds of the law professors in this country, but is happy to mention service as a board member for a a local ACLU. You are welcome to come to her own conclusions about her politics but her interests and concerns as a scholar and advocate cling almost entirely to arguing for civil liberties as against the national security state. I have no dog in this fight, I should add. It just seems to me right to point out that the overall list might be given much more credit than you seem willing to give it.
The percentage of American law faculty who have spoken at Federalist Society events is closer to 10 than 66, probably much closer to 10. And her appearance at a national Federalist Society Faculty Conference, rather than a local get-together, seems as telling as her repeated choice of a conservative separatist publication (Harvard Law and Public Policy) for her work.
Your assessment of 45 non-conservatives seems conclusory, unpersuasive, and, based on a sample, incompatible with evidence.
Duly noted. I'll let Professors, inter alia, Huq, Tushnet, Kramer, Sunstein, Strauss, Powell, Seidman, Segall, Stone, Norton, Greene, Roosevelt, Schwartz, Finkelman, Devins, Lessig, Gienapp, Balkin, Zietlow, Chafetz, Amar, Magliocca, Griffin, Epps, Levinson, Gerhardt, Fleming, and Graber know. Clingers.
There were even Amazon links:
Fleming’s book defends the same-sex and abortion decisions, etc. based on substantive due process. The Roosevelt book says we should celebrate the alleged fact that Lincoln and Reconstruction repudiated the Founding Fathers.
"Roosevelt book"
Good thing Teddy is dead, he'd thrash this punk.
Why would he do that?
"Reconstruction, Roosevelt argues, was not a fulfillment of the ideals of the Founding but rather a repudiation: we modern Americans are not the heirs of the Founders but of the people who overthrew and destroyed that political order. This alternate understanding of American identity opens the door to a new understanding of ourselves and our story, and ultimately to a better America."
Do you think Teddy hated the Founders and their ideals?
Yes I am aware of the book.
He wasn’t a big fan of slavery. Or of totemically worshiping the Founders. His American greatness did not derive from men.
Jerry on, Jerry
He's got two books by Eric Segall on the list, and I can tell you for a fact he is far from conservative on almost all issues. He is also involved with the FedSoc chapter at his law school, because his beef is with the national FedSoc activities. And his book Originalism As Faith is excellent, and I'm sure Prof. Barnett disagrees with most of it.
Respectfully, this course doesn't belong in law school -- it should instead be a senior seminar in a PolSci Dept.
This is why I think Law should be an undergrad major like engineering or nursing, where courses like this could be taken as electives.
Thank you for your input as an expert on truckers.
You are going to make the lawyers angry. Whoa be unto anyone who fails to accept the sacrosanctity of the almighty dollar flowing from students into the coffers of the universities with law schools.
I honestly think that more classes should be like this. Including the first year curriculum. The traditional model of reading cases and having a huge final exam that is 100% of the grade at the end of the year isn't really optimal from a learning perspective.
The issue I have with case books is the feeling that they never stay on one topic long enough to REALLY think things through. Obviously, it is a bonus for students to actually be able to interact with the authors. But even without that, I believe the idea of having a course revolve around books is more sound. It is harder to grasp the bigger picture from a bunch of squibs.
"Constitutional Law" eh?
I searched carefully for Randy Barnett's statement concerning the Constitutional law violations by the prosecution and judges against the D.C. January 6th defendants. Google must be hiding those statements deep in their search engine. Or, maybe Professor Barnett has issued no statements, written no article on the subject, and no media personnel have asked him for his opinion.
Search engines must also be hiding his statements on Bragg's pending indictment against former President Trump.
According to Gregg Jarret when interviewing Attorney Robert Costello, the former legal adviser to Michael Cohen, the following came to light:
Gregg Jarrett: I mentioned it yesterday, I think, when Bob Costello got into that Grand Jury room and told them, “Wait a minute. You don’t have the hundreds of pages I handed over to Alvin Bragg over here? You only have six cherry-picked documents?” You know, hiding from grand juries exculpatory information is reprehensible and unconscionable. And the conduct of Alvin Bragg and his henchman Mark Pomeranz, who specifically says in his book, “We’re targeting zombies because we don’t like his beliefs,” those guys should face disbarment proceedings. Once again the REAL crooks reveal themselves.
_______
Therefore, I suggest that unless they are speaking out loudly and standing strongly against the above-mentioned Constitutional law violations of our government prosecutors, most Professors on this site are not actually law professors or supporters of the Constitution at all. Instead, they are just one of the cogs in the wheel of government jack-booted thugs who use their positions to stand against the rights of the people set forth in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and against the people who they disagree with politically.
/r
Most of the convicted criminals who participated in the Capitol riot have been the beneficiaries of inexplicable leniency.
Quit whining and try to be less un-American.
Such poor writing and nonsensical stringing together of absurdities.
So now, what YOU don't understand IS the inexplicable.
Have you ever ordered your troops to whip the waves 🙂
You didn't mention any "constitutional law violations."
Who cares? The Constitution is a dead letter used only for perfunctory purposes. Pols pay it lip service but little else. Judges bend it every which way possible to enable whatever the Congress enacts. It has done nothing to limit government despite it being one of its primary purposes.
As Lysander Spooner said of it, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
For evidence we need only look around us. Virtually nowhere do we find that the Constitution places any meaningful obstacles in the way of federal power.
The PATRIOT Act, of course, enables the federal government to freely spy on countless Americans with no probable cause. The accused are not permitted to defend themselves in open court, for reasons of “national security.” The privacy of Americans has been effectively abolished. The US Constitution does not prevent this in any way.
And then there is the federal war on drugs. Once upon a time, it was accepted as common knowledge that the federal government did not have the power to regulate intoxicating substances. This is why it was necessary to pass a new constitutional amendment allowing for alcohol prohibition. Then that amendment was repealed. Later, federal judges and politicians decided that the meaning of the Constitution had mysteriously changed to now allow for the federal government to dictate what we all could smoke or eat after all.
At this point, who would be naïve enough to think the federal government would limit itself from any “necessary” act just because it is unconstitutional?
And then, of course, there are the countless federal laws that control every aspect of everyday life from what one can buy or sell to whom one can hire and with whom one may do business.
Are these powers listed under the “enumerated” powers of the Constitution? Do they violate the Bill of Rights? Virtually no one cares. Which means it doesn’t matter. It’s constitutional if the politicians and courts say so.
So, when it comes to the Constitution’s ability to restrain government power, the conclusion is obvious: that scrap of parchment is an obvious failure, and it is apparent that the text of the document is insufficient to prevent interpretations of the text which empower the federal government rather than limit it. It is also apparent that the public and their representatives are uninterested in limiting federal power.
The de facto status of the Constitution is that it positively authorizes every new “despotic incursion” the federal government wishes to initiate. In turn, everything the federal government wishes to do is ultimately constitutional. So long as the public tolerates it.
You argue two contradictory things
1) Nobody knows the Constitution
2) The publis is uninterested in limiting power
But if they don't KNOW the Constitution in what sense can they even have a concpet of limiting.
After dealing with hundreds of college students I am certain that at most 25% would pass a citizenship test.
THe top book on the Constitution, hands down, is
The Classical and Christian Origins of American Politics
And prior to that
Natural Law and the Antislavery Constitutional Tradition
Both of which show that slavery and many human rights issues were only solved ty the natural law background of our founding documents
You might be right, although their record involving Federalist Society participation and co-authors makes it difficult -- not impossible -- to apprehend your conclusion.
"Quantity has a Quality of it's own" pretty sure Thomas Jefferson said that, it's why he had hundreds of average Slaves instead just a few really good ones.
Not a single story, but read "The Complete Works of Emily Dickinson" while in Saudi Arabia, no Homo, but it was the last book I hadn't read after Gone with the Wind, A Tale of 2 Cities, and For Whom the Bell Tolls,
No TV, No Radio, No Motorcars, it was almost like Gilligan's Island, without the hot chicks.