Product Description

From abortion to same-sex marriage, today's most urgent political debates will hinge on this two-part question: What did the United States Constitution originally mean and who now understands its meaning best? Rakove chronicles the Constitution from inception to ratification and, in doing so, traces its complex weave of ideology and interest, showing how this document has meant different things at different times to different groups of Americans.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #240998 in Books
• Published on: 1997-05-27
• Released on: 1997-05-27
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 464 pages

Amazon.com Review
Imagine, for a preposterous moment, that 55 national leaders convened to write a document to guide the country for hundreds of years. It seems unlikely--given that our current contingent of so-called leaders can't agree on how to balance a checkbook--that they could reach consensus on such issues as the allotment of congressional seats. The political and ideological issues that faced the creators of the Constitution were similar in some ways to those at play today. And in some ways they were vastly different ones. Jack Rakove, a history professor at Stanford University, has in this book framed the process that led to the drafting of the constitution in its historical and political context to offer insight into the difficulty of interpreting that most influential of documents.

From Publishers Weekly
Legal conservatives periodically call for judicial decisions based on an interpretation of the Constitution that accords with the "original intent" of those who wrote and ratified it. That's a vexed matter, as Stanford University historian Rakove (The Beginnings of National Politics) shows in this nuanced reconstruction of constitutional debates. First, he explores the difficulty of even divining the understanding of the framers. He goes on to explore James Madison's vital theorizing about federalism, the compromises involved in granting states equal Senate seats and counting slaves in the population, the concept of the Presidency and the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Rakove suggests that the country's political future?whether oriented toward the statehouses or the national capital?depends less on the framers and their constitutional language than on the actions of the American people in the framework that has been created. Moreover, he warns that even Madison's contemporary appeal to originalism was hardly a posture of neutrality. This detailed book will appeal most to students and scholars.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
Surveys of Americans consistently reveal the troubling irony that we know very little about the document we profess to revere so highly: the U.S. Constitution. If more books like this nuanced, lucid work were written and read, perhaps this long-standing trend would begin to reverse itself. Rakove, editor of Interpreting the Constitiution: The Debate over Original Intent (Northeastern Univ., 1990), has made a significant and lasting contribution to the scholarship surrounding the adoption of the Constitution. While this persuasive treatment of the ideological and political background of the Constitution will appeal primarily to scholars in the field, the public would be well served by reading this book, particularly since so many appeals and debates are conducted on the meaning of the Constitution. Rakove convincingly shows that while the Constitution's meaning is not always self-evident and that simple and simple-minded appeals to "original intent" should be rejected, neither is the meaning of our foundational political and legal instrument beyond our understanding. Of especial note is Rakove's scrutiny of James Madison. This work ranks with well-known works by Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, Bruce Ackerman, and others. Its focus on the importance of language is reason enough for placing it on one's shelf. Highly recommended for all libraries.?Stephen Kent Shaw, Northwest Nazarene Coll., Nampa, Id.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Customer Reviews

Insightful and Careful
Several prior reviewers are correct, this book is not intended for the general reading public. It was aimed primarily at scholars of American history and probably also at law professors. To enjoy this book, it is really necessary to know both the basic narrative history and to already have some grasp of 18th century political theory, particularly as it was discussed in British North America. Familiarity with the works of Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood are really necessary to really grasp the issues discussed in this book. That said, this is a really insightful and well written monograph. Rakove covers the basic problems that the initiators of the constitution hoped to solve, the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the campaign over ratification, the Bill of Rights controversy, over important issues like the nature of Presidential power, and even the beginnings of the controversies over interpretation in the early Republic. His emphasis throughout is on the thinking of the Federalists and their opponents. A number of themes emerge though a basic one can be said to be that of ambiguity. A product of differing motivations, political and ideological compromise, and a highly politically charged process of ratification, it is hardly surprising that it is hard to assign unambiguous 'intentions' to many aspects of the constitution. Even when contemporary supporting literature is consulted, like The Federalist Papers, it is not an infallible guide because it contains similar ambiguities. Indeed, without some ambiguity and liberty of interpretation, it is hard to see how the constitution would have succeeded in remaining a guiding document throughout all the changes of hte last 2 centuries. There is no question that some features of the consitution are unambiguous, but they are not always things to be proud of, such as the unequivocal recognition of the legitimacy of chattel slavery. Another basic theme is that the real meaning of the constitution emerges from the collision of what is originally thought and written with the actual processes of politics and government. Rakove's careful analysis and exposition makes it clear that any form of rigid interpretation based on efforts to recover precise understandings of original meanings is likely doomed to failure, and at worst, may be a vehicle for self-deception.
I have to respond to some of the prior comments about this book. It is rather unlikely that Rakove or his publisher have minimized the role of religion in the constitutional process. The best book on the political thinking of this period of American life, Gordon Wood's The Creation of the American Republic, assigns a relatively small role for explicitly religous thought in the political theorizing that drove the constitutional movement. No one has spent more time than Wood in analyzing the primary literature, including a large volume of sermons. Second, Rakove's work is not, as one reviewer wrote, an act of interpretive nihilism. Rakove argues against simple textual analysis as the source of the final answer. Implicit in Rakove's analysis is the idea that the constitutional experience, including traditions developed over the last 2 centuries, and not just a small number of documents, are legitimate data for interpretation. As Professor Wood wrote recently, it is the institutions and traditions we've created over the past 2 centuries that really make us a viable democracy.

Original Meanings: Politics, Ideas and the Constitution
Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution written by Jack N. Rakove is a book wonderfully appointed with documentation and source material about the issues that confronted and were in contention that spirited public debate about the Federal Convention of 1787.

I must say this, that this book was an excellent read, but I believe that the intent of the author was that this should not be your first read into how the U. S. Constitution was framed. This book delves into the time of the framers, as classic issues such as representation, rights, federalism were being debated. Federalist and Anti-Federalist issues are both in representation in this book and are treated equally. This book gives some revealing looks into the men who participated in the framing process, such as George Washington, James Wilson, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and James Madison.

These men along with others hashed out an originalism, only after debate about concerns with the constitution itself. As the author works through the ongoing process of analyzing questions and finally resolving constitutional issues, we see that this process had to resolve many issues and later a compromise was worked out, as all issues were debated, some were not resolved to a resolute finality... salvery, women's voting rights and other issues were later resolved.

The author makes a major contribution to the understanding of the Constitution even thought many may feel they know about how and why the Constitution was written, true understanding of the "Original Meanings" gives us an accessible path to the political problems embedded within our Constitution. This book is an outstandingly good read and well concieved by a talented and thoughtful historian.

Those seeking the true meaning of the Constitution should NOT overlook this book as it is thoughtful and has careful scholarly analysis.

Excellent scholarship, not perfect
Rakove's work must be applauded. His chapter on Madison as the father of the Constitution is wonderful, and his phrase "The Madisonian Moment" is a clever turn on JGA Pockock's famous book.

However, there are a few flaws. First off, as others have noted, Rakove is not an especially good writer. He sometimes takes a page to say what could have been said in just a few simpler words. Second, his conclusions about "original meanings" are not entirely persuasive. He has a point insofar as he argues that finding the original meaning of the Constitution is a difficult quest, because the Constitution was a document produced by compromises. However, it does not follow from this that any meaning can be imputed to the Constitution. There are some interpretations which are simply inconsistent with any reasonable reading of the time and the Philadelphia convention.

Nonetheless, a worthwhile book, deserving of its Pulitzer, and a must-read for scholars of the Constitution.