So I finally finished reading my non-fiction book of the moment this morning, Akhil Reed Amar's The Constitution: A Biography. It's a superb piece of work that I should buy at some point. I learned a great deal about both the document, and the founding period. And Amar's arguments are really quite interesting, and make a good case for the document having been surprisingly democratic in many respects given the times (for example, when it came to the requirements for voting or serving in Congress), and also for having produced a much stronger president than many would've thought likely, given the norms of the time (though of course nothing remotely similar to today's "imperial presidency"). Some other topics include how the document became more democratic over time partially as a result of national crises and public discontent, and how who held the office of president varied at least in part on changing structure of the constitution, and the relative strength of the United States on the world stage. There are also some interesting "what ifs?" (for example, if the South hadn't decided to secede in 1861 - what would've happened on the slavery question?). And the discussion of issues tied to slavery is also one of the book's most interesting topics Amar forcefully argues that the Constitution didn't merely permit slavery, it encouraged it, and that even in 1787 a more strongly anti-slavery constitution could've been produced.
Posted by armand at October 20, 2007 02:03 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Books