Customer Reviews for

The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land

Average Rating 4
( 15 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(10)

4 Star

(1)

3 Star

(1)

2 Star

(2)

1 Star

(1)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing 1 review with 3 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 9, 2013

    Judge Napolitano approaches the theme of his book from the persp

    Judge Napolitano approaches the theme of his book from the perspective of a duel between natural law vs. positivism.  He reasons that any government action that impinges on natural law violates the constitution.  Positivism is the notion that  legislation in the name of public benefit results in the collectivism mentality that is at the root of today's paternalistic,socialistic government.  What the judge overlooks, however, is that whatever was--or is---the prevailing view of constitutionalism is born of excesses.  Our history has been one of balancing excesses.  It was no different then; it is no different now.   The judge's view of natural law  favors collectivism for big business; that is, the ability to set wages, hours and conditions of employment unfettered by the government.  Those who know the history of the early 20th century are all-too-familiar with the excesses of  private business--sweatshops, child labor abuses, unsanitary and unsafe working conditions, etc. For the judge, natural law allows businesses to associate and act for their greater good, but it's against natural law for labor to do likewise.  Napolitano assumes that business and labor are equally free to negotiate working circumstances--an assumption belied by the history of the industrial revolution from the 1870s to the 1920s.  Perhaps the judge hasn't read "The Jungle"  or perhaps he believes that the free market means freedom for business, but not labor.  Certainly, the ":glory days" that Judge Napolitano wants do not include a return to sweatshops, child labor abuses, unhealthy work conditions, etc.  I am certain the judge well knows that had the states protected their workers, the federal government would have had no reason to step in.  I agree that the New Deal has led to excesses in paternalistic government.  Today, too many are dependent on government.  But what would Napolitano have government do?  Terminate social security and Medicare for those who, by age or disability, can no longer work and provide for themselves or their families?   Terminate earned pensions and force into economic ruination those who similarly can no longer work?  I certainly don't mind  making adjustments for those who can make the adjustments. But asking those past 70 to go back to work or find other means of earning income is simply unrealistic at best, and downright dangerous at worst.   As for natural law, I suppose natural law doesn't apply to African-Americans, as it took constitutional amendments and federal legislation to give them the same natural law rights enjoyed by men and property owners.  And  women as well, since it took constitutional amendments and legislation for women to enjoy some semblance of a  level playing field.  Judge Napolitano is outraged at the constitutional excesses engaged in by the Supreme Court and Congress since the 1930s.  I trust he is equally outraged at the corporate and big business excesses that led to the New Deal.  And we can both be upset at the excesses of today's overly paternalistic government; but the overriding importance is to strike a balance, not throw the baby out with the bath water.   

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing 1 review with 3 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1