<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Pretty good introduction but not very thorough.
Review: Although this book might be somewhat exacting to the lay-reader, this book is much less academic than it could be. The format was great, the first three essays by Meese, Brennan and Graglia (awh hell! Throw in Rakove's introduction) starts us off very well, well acquainting the reader with the debate. We then move to "The public debate," which takes the 'schools' and puts them into current context, "historical perspectives" putting the issue into historical context, and finally, "normative issues" which outlays (albeit somewhat timidly) the competing philosophies of Original Intent and Judicial Activism. Overall, as with all essay compilations, some essays are better than others. Bork, Rakove, Brest, Brennan and Meese steal the show but the others provide a great supporting cast. Two complaints. First, the book leaves two critical views unexplored. First, judicial pragmatism, as outlayed by O.W. Holmes and Richard Posner, and Textualism, as exemplified by Antonin Scalia. Both are relatively small schools carrying comparitively little weight in the academic community but neither should be ignored. After all, both have contributed strongly to public debate, which is what this book is supposed to capture. Second, as mentioned by the reviewer below, the book is unusually cursory. Besides Borks "Neutral Principles", the book pays little attention to methodology, focusing all it's attention on cultural context. For methodology, read Dworkin's "Law's Empire" and Bork's "Tempting of America." Still, I give it four stars. As an introduction for pre-law students and the lay-person with intellectual stamina, it's the best I know of; Well laid out, good essays, and extremely balanced. Reccomended, but as nothing more than an introducton!
Rating:
Summary: State of the question c. 1990!
Review: This book presents all of the "leading" think pieces of the 1980s on the topic of "original intent" jurisprudence.
<< 1 >>
| 
