Rating: 
Summary: a great intro to Constitutional Law
Review: I highly recommend this book to anyone interesting in learning where the origins of constitutional law are to be found. Simon does a great job of capturing the fundamental issues in Marbury v. Madison and providing great historical analysis. This is a perfect book to read over the summer if you are just beginning law school and have to take Con Law in the Fall.
Rating:
Summary: Readable history but a flawed conclusion
Review: I was disappointed that Simon didn't begin this book with that famous quote of Ben Franklin's when the woman approached him after the vote in the Constitutional Congress and said, "Sir, what kind of government have you given us?" and Franklin responded, "A republic, Madam, if you can keep it."Another thing that surprises me is the astonishment so many contemporary authors (McCullough, Ellis, Brookhiser) express in discovering that very often these men -- these "founders" -- didn't like each other, but they managed to work toward the common good in spite of their differences. Hello! Just what do they think politics is all about, anyway? And have they never seen attorneys in court -- and afterwards? Do they not realize that men in the 18th century were human beings just like the rest of us? Simon continues the contemporary revisionist Jefferson-bashing by perpetuating the now-debunked Hemings story, which lowers his credibility. Jefferson and Marshall are portrayed as politicians as they were. Both were attorneys and Jefferson, at least, knew exactly the kind of power Marshall was after. That made him a formidable opponent. But the most interesting thing about this book to me is its conclusion, which I believe to be seriously flawed. Simon says that Marshall succeeded in defeating Jefferson's states rights concept when what he really did was to establish a more equal balance between the judicial, executive and legislative branches of government. The outcome (or, rather, the inevitable outcome had it been totally played out) of the recent election is a case in point. According to Constitutional law, had the combatants -- Bush and Gore -- decided to continue the process, the election would have been thrown back into the Florida state legislature (indeed, that's where the Supreme Court sent it because of the Constitution), where it would have been decided. That's States Rights, folks. Jefferson's States Rights. That's why Gore quit when he did -- the Florida legislature was heavily Republican, therefore the proverbial handwriting was on the vertical surface. Had Florida not been able to choose, the matter would have gone on to Congress. The powers are beautifully balanced but the point is that the Supreme Court was and is not the final arbiter. I'm sure Marshall would have preferred it to be otherwise and it might have been so if it were not for Jefferson. So to say that Marshall, who admittedly won a number of skirmishes, actually won the war is debatable and, I hope, will be explored with prejudice for the other side of the argument in another book by another author someday. But the critic must give the author his material, so WHAT KIND OF NATION is a delightfully readable compilation of some fascinating material on one of the critical debates (or, more accurately, jockeying for power) that necessarily occurred during the birth pains of our nation. The fact that the principals didn't like each other personally lends color to the presentation of the material. The source notes in the back of the book are extremely useful for the reader who prefers to check the context of various quotations and even conclusions.
Rating: 
Summary: a riveting, but slanted account
Review: If you have read the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, and wonder how we got from there to here, this is an excellent book. It traces the evolution of the Supreme Court during the early years of our republic. It frames this evolution in the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall. We see Jefferson's thinking that the Supreme Court would be some sort of advisory board, and that federal law should not reign supreme over state law. On the other side, we see John Marshall's strongly held beliefs that the Supreme Court should have equal power with Congress and the President, and that federal law should be considered superior to state law. We see the various court battles that brought about judicial review and that cemented John Marshall's views as American policy. A very interesting and thoughtful book.
Rating:
Summary: One of America's great rivlaries
Review: In all great conflicts, North vs. South, Ali vs. Fraser, Lakers vs. Celtics, and Jefferson vs. Marshall, it is difficult to remain neutral and unbiased. Simon clearly sides with John Marshall in the epic struggle between our nations Third President and Fourth Chief Justice, but Simon's partiality to Marshall does not detract from the accuracy of this book.
Readers will come away with a solid understanding of what fueled the fire of this great relationship of adversaries. Using myself as an example, I strongly disagreed with the SCOTUS' recent ruling against the Texas sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, and though I still disagree with the decision, I now clearly understand how Marshall set the precedent for SCOTUS to be the final arbiter for all things judicial and clearly placed the state courts into the role of subservient.
At times, this book is rather dry, but Simon successfully imparts a good flow of information. This book isn't for everyone, but is essential reading for the pre-law student or anyone interested in the relationship between these two monumental early Americans. Also, for anyone who, like me, is a state's rights advocate, this book gives tremendous insight into how the judiciary became the monarchial behemoth we are saddled with today.
Whether you are a Jeffersonian style state's rights advocate, or a Marshall style Federalist, you will finish this book with a greater understanding of how and why things became the way they are.
Rating:
Summary: One of America's great rivlaries
Review: In all great conflicts, North vs. South, Ali vs. Fraser, Lakers vs. Celtics, and Jefferson vs. Marshall, it is difficult to remain neutral and unbiased. Simon clearly sides with John Marshall in the epic struggle between our nations Third President and Fourth Chief Justice, but Simon's partiality to Marshall does not detract from the accuracy of this book. Readers will come away with a solid understanding of what fueled the fire of this great relationship of adversaries. Using myself as an example, I strongly disagreed with the SCOTUS' recent ruling against the Texas sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, and though I still disagree with the decision, I now clearly understand how Marshall set the precedent for SCOTUS to be the final arbiter for all things judicial and clearly placed the state courts into the role of subservient. At times, this book is rather dry, but Simon successfully imparts a good flow of information. This book isn't for everyone, but is essential reading for the pre-law student or anyone interested in the relationship between these two monumental early Americans. Also, for anyone who, like me, is a state's rights advocate, this book gives tremendous insight into how the judiciary became the monarchial behemoth we are saddled with today. Whether you are a Jeffersonian style state's rights advocate, or a Marshall style Federalist, you will finish this book with a greater understanding of things became the way they are.
Rating:
Summary: A fine approach to the study of these two giants.
Review: Lawyers often make poor historians. That might strike some as counter-intuitive as precedents are by their nature `historical'. But legal precedents are a narrow technical field and though they can encompass the political, economic and social issues of their day the legal logic and argument that surround them are usually- with some major exceptions- divorced from them. And perhaps it's that their [the lawyer as historian] early years have been shaped by legal reasoning and in spite of exposure to history such as an undergrad or grad degree, this legal mindset often limits a more holistic approach to the subject matter.
Not so with James F. Simon's "What Kind of Nation". Simon writing eschews the sort of legal analysis best left to law textbooks in favor of a clear, fairly encompassing and biographically based approach. And a fine approach it is. With healthy portions of legal analysis but an even finer biographer's paintbrush Simon comes close to bringing to life many of the individuals and their ideological stands.
At the center is of course Jefferson and Marshall. Both get sympathetic, but honest treatment from Simon. Jefferson, the idealist, strongly holding the belief that favored the limiting of government and the Federalists as the greatest threat to liberty in the young nation. His horror at the Sedition acts and the steps taken by the Republicans are highlighted as are the equally strong beliefs and actions taken by the Federalists to implement them.
Marshall is painted in an even finer light I think. Perhaps it's because Jefferson's more volatile temper got the best of him at times or perhaps Marshall's nature was to be a more moderating influence, he comes across a intelligent and subtle thinker. Read his approach to Marbury, where he takes the long road to come to his final conclusion. It was an approach that made upheld many of the Federalist tenets yet gave the victory to Jefferson. Masterfull.
Simon does a great job in describing two important events in that era. The first is the impeachment of Samuel Chase a justice on the Supreme Court. Simon presents the legal arguments in clear precise prose. But he does more than that, he describes the individuals involved-their strengths and weaknesses, the drama behind the scenes and sets it all in the context of the political mechanizations of the era. Equally compelling is the description of Burr's fall from grace and subsequent trial for treason. Marshall and Jefferson's role in both events are given in some detail and their rationales analyzed within the framework of the issues each was faced with.
James F. Simon has given a well written and immensely interesting picture of the dynamics between Jefferson and Marshall and the era in which they lived. With a clear, precise and entertaining writing style and with one foot firmly planted what seems like a historian's mindset I'm anxious to read more of his works. I would love to read a more in depth study of Chase or Burr- for example- written by Simon.
Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Thomas Jefferson as Adversary
Review: On a recent vacation to Colonial Williamsburg and Monticello, my 14-year-old nephew commented that Thomas Jefferson didn't get along with Alexander Hamilton. The four adults accompanying him replied patronizingly that Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr certainly didn't get along, but didn't remember anything between Hamilton and Jefferson... Of course, my nephew was absolutely correct. In an effort to rectify my obvious educational deficiency, I immediately embarked on a reading plan which led me to "What Kind of Nation", where I discovered that Thomas Jefferson also didn't along with John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. By the time I got to this book I had a pretty good feel for the politics of the period, having read "Founding Brothers" by Joseph Ellis, "Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington" by Richard Brookhiser, "Alexander Hamilton: American" by Richard Brookhiser and "James Madison" by Garry Wills. I believe this background helped me to maximize my enjoyment of "What Kind of Nation" because I was able to focus on Marshall's brilliance and perseverance in establishing the authority of the Supreme Court on an equal footing with the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Jefferson's antics were amusing, but old news. The way that Marshall dealt with Jefferson who was, after all, the President of the United States during the first 8 years of Marshall's 34 years as Chief Justice, is fascinating. James Simon does a great job of telling the story without getting overly technical with the legal side of things. I think he strikes just the right balance, so that the lay reader (i.e., non-lawyer) can appreciate the significance of Marshall's extraordinary accomplishments.
Rating:
Summary: Thomas Jefferson as Adversary
Review: On a recent vacation to Colonial Williamsburg and Monticello, my 14-year-old nephew commented that Thomas Jefferson didn't get along with Alexander Hamilton. The four adults accompanying him replied patronizingly that Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr certainly didn't get along, but didn't remember anything between Hamilton and Jefferson... Of course, my nephew was absolutely correct. In an effort to rectify my obvious educational deficiency, I immediately embarked on a reading plan which led me to "What Kind of Nation", where I discovered that Thomas Jefferson also didn't along with John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. By the time I got to this book I had a pretty good feel for the politics of the period, having read "Founding Brothers" by Joseph Ellis, "Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington" by Richard Brookhiser, "Alexander Hamilton: American" by Richard Brookhiser and "James Madison" by Garry Wills. I believe this background helped me to maximize my enjoyment of "What Kind of Nation" because I was able to focus on Marshall's brilliance and perseverance in establishing the authority of the Supreme Court on an equal footing with the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Jefferson's antics were amusing, but old news. The way that Marshall dealt with Jefferson who was, after all, the President of the United States during the first 8 years of Marshall's 34 years as Chief Justice, is fascinating. James Simon does a great job of telling the story without getting overly technical with the legal side of things. I think he strikes just the right balance, so that the lay reader (i.e., non-lawyer) can appreciate the significance of Marshall's extraordinary accomplishments.
Rating:
Summary: From Another Interested Reader
Review: The world needs a book about John Marshall's contribution to America. In my opinion, "What Kind Of Nation" by James F. Simon is it. Though the nature of the subject almost guarantees that the reading will be somewhat dry, scholarly, and lawyerlike, the author did a nice job with it. As a scholar myself, I recommend it. If you're looking for an easy read on Thomas Jefferson, I also recommend Norman Thomas Remick's excellent book "West Point: Character Leadership Education, A Book Developed From Thomas Jefferson's Readings And Writings", in which West Point is posited as a metaphor for Jefferson's worldview of the way America ought to be.
Rating: 
Summary: Solid But Not Deep
Review: This book is written for a broad audience and aimed at exploring one of the oldest and most persistent problems in American history; the proper role of the Federal Government. Simon frames this book as a conflict between Jefferson, representing those who supported a weaker central government and emphasized the importance of individual states, and John Marshall, the great Chief Justice who led the Supreme Court to establish its critical role as arbiter of constitutional questions. The Marshall court's work strengthened the importance not only of the Supreme Court but of the Federal Government in general. This is not a new story, indeed, most of what Simon describes is the standard understanding of this period of our history. Simon is a good writer who describes the politics and legal issues quite well. His description and analysis of the behavior of the Marshall court is shrewd, emphasizing Marshall's careful attention to both politics and crucial legal issues. For example, it is clear that Marshall worked very hard to maintain unanimity among the justices, even for difficult decisions. Similarly, many of his important decisions were crafted to simultaneously achieve the goal of establishing his brand of moderate Federalism while avoiding inflammatory political consequences. Readers will finish this book with an increased appreciation for Marshall's considerable intellect and remarkable political skills. Beyond this, the book is disappointing in terms of explaining the wellsprings of these conflicts and important aspects of the debate. I think the emphasis on the rivalry between Jefferson and Marshall, which Simon probably chose as a framing device, actually tends to limit understanding of the nature of this conflict. While I respect Simon's desire to produce a relatively concise and accessible book, some aspects deserve enlargement. For example, Jefferson found the Court's tendency to rely on Common Law traditions irksome, believing the Court should have been more deferential to the wished of state legislatures. Does this represent a conflict between individuals like Jefferson whose primary intellectual influences came from the British Enlightenment versus a legal culture that grew up in the shadow of the great British Common Law theorists? To what extent did individual experience of the Revolution influence subsequent political positions? Jefferson spent the war as governor of Virginia or abroad. Marshall, in contrast, was an officer in the Continental Army and experienced in very concrete ways the inadequacies of the confederation government that preceded the establishment of our present constitution. This book is a good point of departure for individuals unfamiliar with this period of our history but further reading will be needed for anyone who really wishes to understand our early history. I recommend the The Age of Federalism by Elkins and McKitrick, a superb treatment of the Federalist period, as a starting point.
|
