Kansas Books

Wow! It isn't often that I actually feel a little shaken by virtue of what I have read, but if anything can conjure up for one an unforgettable yet eminently non-fictional picture of the modern battlefield in the post-WWII era, then this book by retired U. S. Army historian Peter Kindsvatter does so. What the author offer is literally a phenomenological exploration into the heart of darkness of modern combat, one into which young soldiers have been sucked into the vortex of the experience with wildly inaccurate and romanticized notions regarding their own fallacious expectations of the experience. As the dust jacket appropriately remarks, this is a journey into the hearts and minds of the average soldier, in Korea, Vietnam and since, and shows how popular "John Wayne" colorized fictions set our kids up for a fateful slam into the brick wall of a much more horrible reality. Thus, beginning with such unrealistic ideas of what to expect, Kindsvatter argues quite forcefully that such inaccurate conceptualizations aided the solders in creating what he refers to as a "fictionalized" set of images of war.

Therefore, despite the relatively intensive military training the young recruits received, the author contends nothing could succeed in disabusing them of these fallacious notions or completely prepare them for the horror of actual combat. The nature of that combat, with its extreme emotional stress, physical hardships, and bloodthirsty graphics, spawned a kind of emotional syndrome that the author argues progresses fairly predictably from initial shock and disbelief through a period of confusion toward a perpetual state of much more hyperawareness, a state in which their immediate performance becomes maximal while the effects on their long-term mental health becomes progressively more dangerous. Critical to the success of this progression of this 'pilgrim's progress' from disbelief through confusion and into a battle-weary hyper-vigilance was the camaraderie of their fellow soldiers, their belief systems, and each soldier's individual will to survive. Obviously, Kindsvatter observes, in situations such as Vietnam, where the belief systems came into serious question both within the ranks and in the culture back home, successful maintenance of this state of combat readiness was more and more imperiled.

What the author contends is that once such belief systems are destroyed, few things can repair or sustain them. For some, the excitement of battle turns them into "combat junkies", and it is these guys who may succeed in surviving only to find readjustment to civil society later is extremely hazardous. For the majority, it was integration into the unit and the friendships within it that sustained them, and allowed them to continue under some of the most extreme continuing conditions modern humans can experience. Yet eventually, for most soldiers the ability to function slowly eroded, to the point that many casualties occurred for "burned out" grunts who had more than enough savvy to protect themselves, but who has lost the kind of emotional edge they needed to continue. In these cases, many of them suffered emotional breakdowns and/or total physical exhaustion. This is an important book, and one that anyone with either a friend or relative in the military would do well to read. I hope it gains wider readership, as it is a serious, enlightened, and worthwhile entry into the field of military history. Enjoy!

Each year witnesses the publication of many books on constitutional theory and history that are worth reading. But few of those books really transcend and redefine the field of study. John Dinan's most recent book may be one of those few. At the very least, I believe it is a harbinger of a sea change in the field. I believe that we are going to see much more interest in the history of the various state constitutions as a part of the American constitutional tradition than has been the case up until now.
And everyone who studies those state constitutions will find themselves in serious debt to Dinan. Consider the following numbers: "All told, the fifty states have held 233 constitutional conventions, adopted 146 constitutions, and ratified over 6,000 amendments to their current constituions" (Dinan, 1). Most of the conventions fell within five periods in American history. The Founding era, the Jacksonian era, the Civil War period and its aftermath, the Progressive era and then what Dinan calls the Reapportionment Revolution that occured after the 1962 Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Carr were the periods of intense constitutional activity. Out of those 233 conventions, Dinan has located the records to 114 conventions. He has read all of those records plus all contemporary accounts he could find of the conventions and an enormous amount of secondary material. What is even more impressive is that throughout his book he very clearly lays out what state adopted what change, where that can be found not only in that state's constitution but in the convention records. His book led me to purchase the convention records of my own state, Oregon and to begin wading through it. By the way, part of the fun of Dinan's book is in the quotes from those conventions. Some of the convention members were quite funny in a Mark Twain way.
Dinan's conclusion is that too much emphasis has been placed on the Federal Convention and ratification debates when discussing American constitutionalism. He is not questioning the quality of those records but he is pointing out that our constitutional thought evolved in many ways beyond those records and may well be best revealed in the records of the various states.
The linchpin difference is in the amendment process. In his Chapter 2, Dinan traces the way that the state approach to amendment changed over the course of our history. The first hard look at the amendment process came during the Jacksonian period. During this time, many of the established states witnessed popular desire to overcome the entrenched power of certain geographical areas of that state. These entrenched powers maintained their power through malapportionment of the legislature (p.33). One way to correct this problem was to liberalize the amendment process. This was claimed to have other benefits as well. It would educate the populace in republican principles via the amendment debates and it would give legitimate majoritarian movements a way to push for change short of revolution. Of course, these arguments were countered but in general the amendment process was slowly liberalized. By the end of the 19th century, all states but New Hampshire had authorized their legislatures to make amendments (p.42). Dinan traces this process through the 20th century movement to allow for amendment by constitutional initiative. (The great State of) Oregon was the first to allow this in 1903 and since then 17 other states have provided for that form of amendment. Many other states have eliminated their most stringent supermajority requirements for amendments or for calling conventions. Compare this with the stringent supermajority requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Working with the 2000 Census numbers, it is theoretically possible for the less than 6% of the population (rounding up from the total for the 13 least populated states) to block an amendment.
This difference in the ease of amendment has certain immediate and obvious implications. I would claim (this is my own point) that this makes the state constitutions messier; with a less clear boundary between statuatory and constitutional law. Especially in states like mine that allow for constitutional initiatives, this boundary gets blurred. And this can cause problems, especially with the protection of the rights of individuals.
Dinan focuses his books on relating the way this difference played out in the state constitutions in five major areas of governance: representation, seperation of powers, bicameralism, rights and citizen character. Each of these broad issues is dealt with in its own chapter, tracing its own history and the arguments that were adduced during the conventions. Each chapter notes some of the major ways that the states eventually diverged from the federal model. In the case of representation, for example, many states choose to, over time, allow their citizens more and more of a direct voice in determining the laws of their state. Twenty-four states currently allow for some sort of referendum and initiative system (pp.134-5). Those who believe in the whole bugaboo of judicial review will be chagrined to read that little change was made to judicial review during the course of our history. Two states currently require a supermajority of their Supreme Court justices to overturn a law. The most popular corrective has proven to be the recall of justices pioneered by (the great State of) Oregon in 1908. Since then, eleven other states have followed suit (judicial review is discussed in Dinan on pp. 123-35). Dinan's chapter on Citizen Character is especially revealing in terms of the liberalism/republicanism debate. I recently reviewed two excellent volumes by Alan Gibson on how that debate has molded our understanding of the U.S. Constitution. One of Gibson's main conclusions was that the Founders did not want to mold the character of our citizens on the Federal level. One of the conclusions of Dinan's book is the founders of the individual states sure gave it a good try for a long time. And in some ways, they succeeded. Probably the most important way to look at the spread of universal compulsory education is in this light- that it was largely done to mold (and conform) the character of the American melting pot. To which I say, "Good luck with that".
In any case, this is a remarkable book and one that I will return to a lot in the future. Dinan's scholarship is insightful and his presentation of that scholarship is generous. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

Professor Wheeler has written one of the most insightful accounts of a small Kansas town and of Swedish/American life. I recommend it. Dale R. larsen, St. Loui

Gerard Macgliocca's book is an important contribution to our understanding of constitutional history. It is a remarkable concise essay that tries to reestablish the importance of the Jacksonians and the Taney Court in our legal history while presenting a theory of the rise and fall of constitutional "generations".
Magliocca sees each constitutional generation as being "formed" by shared collective experiences that cause them to largely share political and legal beliefs. The experiences that Magliocca is talking about can be things like 9-11, the Great Depression, the Civil War, etc. (pp.2-3). Obviously he is talking about a tendency of a majority as opposed to the views of any one individual. These generations are also reflected in the political domination of one party, e.g., the Jacksonians, FDR Democrats, etc.. The great eras of our constitutional history can thus be seen as a period when one generation held sway. At that moment, another generation is always beginning to develope in response to real injustices that are ignored (or condoned) by the dominant generation.
Magliocca throughout his book lists patterns of change that every rising generation follows. This is where my comparison to the I Ching comes in. I am being somewhat tongue-in-cheek in making that comparison but Magliocca invites that sort of response with statements like the following: "Reform leads to resistance, and resistance leads to reform. That is a central theme of the constitutional cycle" (p.112). Fortunately, Magliocca has some very powerful ideas to offer us about some of these patterns of change. For example, he believes that as a rising generation rises to power through Congress and the Presidency, that the older generation still dominant on the Supreme Court begins to escalate their resistance. At this point, the older generation is likely to start to hand down "preemptive opinions". These rulings utilize three tactics:
1. The Justices will decide every issue instead of following the usual practice of avoiding major constitutional issues. They are trying to create landmark rulings.
2. The Court will try to undermine the rising generations thought in the strongest possible way. They want to attack its basic principles and rule them invalid.
3. Since this is usually very difficult to do with established doctrine, the Court will invent some "new theory of equality or fairness" to ground their ruling on. (p.43)
Magliocca believes that both Worcester v. Georgia in 1832 and Dred Scott v. Sanford are examples of such decisions. It is worth the reading of Magliocca's book for his reading of these two cases alone.
The Kuhnian thrust of Magliocca's argument (that I allude to in my review title) is that Magliocca believes that these "generational" conflicts are fought out politically and not through contests of reasoning. His history of the Taney court and of the rise and fall of the Jacksonians provides strong evidence for his belief. Magliocca also makes room for the role of chance events (the death of William Henry Harrison and the subsequent Tyler presidency, the assassination of Lincoln, etc.)
Overall, this is, as stated, a very impressive essay. My problem with Magliocca is hinted at by my use of the word essay. This books needs expansion. As it is, it is only 129 pages long. He should have continued the story through both the rise of the Progressive and the New Deal generation. Magliocca is claiming universal validity for his thesis with its individual patterns of change.
Here is another example:
"Rising movements are filled with a righteous belief that the voters have give them a mandate for constitutional reform. On the other side, the justices generally believe that they represent the true voice of the people as set forth in the text of the Constitution and decades of precedent." (p. 37)
This seems true enough but it needs to be shown to be a truly universal pattern. Show me how it worked in the switch to the Progressives or to the New Deal. Applying his concepts to more historical examples would allow them to be further refined.
This is especially true of his concept of preemptive opinion. I would love to have seen an Appendix with a listing of all the cases that Magliocca suspected could be considered as such. I would love to read what Magliocca would have to say about a case like Buck v. Bell in 1935? It would seem to be a good candidate for preemptive status except for the third tactic. Indeed, Justice Roberts seems to reach back to fairness standards of a generation or two earlier in that one. (See the second chapter of Leuchtenburg's, The Supreme Court Reborn, for a good discussion).
So my complaint is that the current book feels more like a precise for a reasearch program to be completed. Magliocca may be on to an essential way of understanding major changes in our constitutional history. He hasn't convinced me that it is applicable to that larger history as yet. He has provided us, however, with a very fine and subtle reading to the Jacksonian period. I do not want to minimize that. For example, be makes a subtle and important point about how the beliefs of the abolitionist evolved as a result of watching the Jacksonian treatment of the Cherokees. His book is well worth reading for the period history alone.
But I, for one, am waiting for the rest of the history.

Accomplished scholar Prof. Ralph Rossum has penned a well-crafted book analyzing the legal opinions and writings of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The result is a solid read about how Justice Scalia views the role of a judge and how he sees himself. At least, Rossum gives his own take on how Justice Scalia sees himself. Obviously, the only person who truly knows how he sees himself is Justice Scalia.

One of the two most interesting chapters is Chapter 2: "Text and Tradition." It summarizes Justice Scalia's textualist approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation. In short, when deciding a given case, the plain meaning of the words contained in statutes or constitution provisions matters. Where the plain text is unclear, a jurist should consult the tradition behind the text to understand what the words mean to those who adopted it. The original understanding of the text rather than any original or even secret intent should be controlling. Justice Scalia's approach is tied to an emphasis upon the democratic decision-making process as the basis for legitimate exercise of governmental authority. Not judicial adventurism and second-guessing of democratic decision-making evidenced by statutes and constitutional provisions.

This book is not lengthy. Nor is it written at a highly technical level. So although Rossum indicates on pg. 37 that Justice Scalia "simply has not developed a well-thought-out understanding of the principles of democracy," Rossum does not elaborate much on the point. One will just have to consult law review articles and the like for more in that regard.

The other chapter making for the most interesting reading is Chapter 3: "Constitutional Structure and Separation of Powers." This portion transitions nicely from the previous chapter and underscores the importance that governmental structure plays in Justice Scalia's views of the constitution. During his SCOTUS confirmation hearings, then-Judge Scalia testified that our division of federal power into three branches with a system of checks and balances has been crucial to the defense of our liberties. Rossum proceeds to analyze important separation of powers opinions written by Justice Scalia, including his infamous, lone-ranger dissent in Morrison v. Olsen (1988) concerning the Ethics in Government Act's provision for an independent counsel. At issue was the constitutionality of vesting the independent counsel of executive power despite its detachment from the President. Also important is Rossum's analysis of Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Printz v. United States (1997). The case is typically known as an anti-commandeering decision, but Rossum highlights the separation of powers rationale that Justice Scalia includes in the opinion.

Later chapters deal with Justice Scalia's approach to substantive individual rights and to individual procedural rights. Justice Scalia's textualist emphasis is to prevent "backsliding" or erosion of important freedoms by judicial re-interpretation of democratically-adopted protections.

Some familiarity with Justice Scalia's opinions or his book, A Matter of Interpretation, makes Rossum's book more worthwhile. But it is not essential. One need not be a lawyer to follow Rossum's overview. Nor need one even agree with Justice Scalia's approach to law or decisions in the cases discussed in the book to benefit from reading this book. The book has a sympathetic tone towards its subject, but it is not an advocacy publication. Rossum even insists while Justice Scalia is remarkably consistent in his jurisprudence that he is nonetheless inconsistent in a few areas of law (e.g., state sovereign immunity.)

Rossum set out to describe the jurisprudence of perhaps the most interesting and discussed jurist on SCOTUS today. The author succeeds and the product is an accessible, informative, and interesting read.

This was the most fun investing book I've read, and it also made a lot of sense to me. It gave me practical advice that I can apply to my own investment strategy and will aid me in building a portfolio. I loved the examples of how to do evaluation. All in all I would highly recommend this book for being both interesting and informative.

I got this book as a gift actually but because it is so awesome, I plan on now buying this book for my friends! It's the only one that I turn to in regards to spiritual warfare. Spiritual warfare is something every Christian needs to deal with. This book is Bible-based so you know it's not a bunch of B.S. It's easy to read and not overly "academic;" I'm just amazed at how much content is stuffed into this book. After reading this book, I feel more equiped as a Christian and because there is so much content in it, I have read it again and again and have always received new insight each time.

A must for Chiefs' fans. An interesting history lesson as well as all the top games in the great Stadium's history. You could swear you were back in the stadium for the Montana-led Chiefs vs. the 49ers game. The hundreds of color pictures alone are worth the price of the book!

Actually purchased for my wife who requested it after having seen examples of the patterns. She is very happy with book and has made several projects from it.

Identity crises plague both Claudine St. James and Robert Lester, though for entirely different reasons. Claudie comes from a broken home and a life of prostitution. Bo was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a father who never deigned to notice him. As they struggle to connect the pieces of their past into a meaningful present, both Claudie and Bo must learn self-acceptance and forgiveness.

Claudie's been of the streets for seven months, starting a halfway house for prostitutes and using her experience to help others. But she can't forget the family she left behind, especially the youngest sister she practically raised. Fearing that at seventeen her sister may become her stepfather next victim, Claudie heads to Kansas to confront her past.

Bo follows Claudie, realizing the danger in her quest. Even as Claudie believes she can't share her used and damaged body with this remarkable man, he's equally determined to love her and give her a future. Claudie's skittishness and fears are portrayed compassionately and realistically, making her an extraordinarily sympathetic character without undermining her strength. Bo's own issues with her father prevent him from becoming "too perfect," and giving him sufficient flaws to be perfectly human. Indeed, Bo's both wonderfully tender and self honest, making him perfect for Claudie.

Debra Salonen's daring choice of a heroine brings gritty realism and compassion to BACK IN KANSAS. Salonen writes with a deep understanding of how good girls go wrong, and how a few can still make their lives right. BACK IN KANSAS also presents a flawed hero, providing the novel with dynamic characters guaranteed to win the reader's heart. Very highly recommended.