Administrative Procedures Books

If I recall his New Yorker profile accurately, Posner gets up at 4 a.m. every morning to maintain his extraordinary and excellent output as a public intellectual and judge of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. At 145 pages, this volume is perhaps Posner's shortest and--both because it is aimed at a general audience and resulted from a lecture series--one of his most readable. My sense, however, is that it would only appeal to those already steeped in the profession. Not even a law student would find instructive comparisons with Stone, Hand, Friendly, Prosser, or Schaeffer. For those in the profession, however, I recommend this book most highly. It is less valuable for its purported study in reputation than for its profound, if succinct, understanding of Cardozo the man and the insight it provides into the style and logic of some of his best known decisions, Palsgraf and MacPherson chief among them. Posner's original attempt at a quantitative understanding of reputation relies on Cardozo's relative frequency of citation in some Westlaw data bases over the years. It is pseudo-scientific, redolent of Posner's application of economics to an understanding of the law and, while interesting, not very meaningful. The book as a whole, however, is most gratifying.

This may be the classic book by Posner. Shorter than most his books--and less encyclopaedic--but also less maiandering. Cardozo: A Study in Reputation stays on track, while revealing a complex sensibility of jurisprudence by Posner and an astounding intuition by Cardozo. In this book we see two great legal minds at work: Cardozo's providing the interpretations that further social welfare and Posner's explaining why these interpretations are so desirable.

I 'd rate this book the one MUST READ book if you are thinking about law school. This is what law school is about: Struggling with how to promote social welfare by interpretation and rulemaking.

Judge Posner examines the reasons for Cardozo's reputation and, more important, analyzes the rhetorical methods the judge used in creating some of the most renowned and cited decisions in American law. How and why he crafted the statement of the facts a certain way for one decision, a different way for another; how Cardozo used a lawyer's persuasive skills in reaching results he believed were warranted. Posner also examines the inconsistencies in Cardozo's thinking and opinion-writing. The book presents a portrait of a brilliant, prudent jurist and illuminates his professional shortcomings as well. May have little appeal for the non-lawyer, but for anyone interested in legal writing, the judicial process, and opinion-making, this is a terrific book.

Judge Posner builds and presents a strong case in defense of Justice Cardozo's reputation as a leading American jurist. Apparently, sometime during the 1950s a revisionary movement emerged in American legal thought that eventually injured Benjamin N. Cardozo. His Hemmingwayesque opinions were criticized as pedestrian, and the logic behind his reasoning was attacked as paternalistic. Judge Posner's thesis (a top-notch dissertation) deflects the subjective defamation and focuses upon objective standards of judicial measurement. Employing the resources of an electronic legal database, he proves that the Cardozo opinions, particularly those written as a judge in NY's Ct. of Appeals, have been consistently cited with regularity. This original test demonstrates that Cardozo's influence on the common law is unrivaled by any jurist other than O W Holmes.

Attempting to create a new genre of social science, Judge Posner smoothly integrates the drives that formed Cardozo as a man with the strictures of the law that define a judge. Analysis of the opinions, along with the briefs of the arguments, show that he was a good judge because he was able to reach correct results even when the specific facts of cases seemed to predict a legal anamoly. That quality produced case law that remains hard to reconcile, and the result has been attacks on the decisions as inconsistent. Judge Posner recognizes those weaknesses, but rather than contorting his logic in reconciling them explains that a man's reputation is typically based on either his high points or his low ones. In Cardozo's case, his death after only six years on the US Supreme Court limited the high points to controversial cases, such as MacPherson and Hynes. Judge Posner speculates that had Cardozo, like Holmes, had a full career as a Supreme Court justice the subjective standard for measurement of his reputation would have shifted away from the decisions as a state judge.

Although those state court opinions continue to dominate Torts textbooks, Cardozo's critics have injured his reputation by suggesting that he was merely a flamboyant local judge. Judge Posner shows that their slurs have not reached the ears of leading jurists. However, the ordinary person is apt to adopt those reputationary revisions without actually reading Cardozo's opinions and relating them to the specific cases and the development of American common law. Thus, Judge Posner creates a bridge, somewhat like Justice Cardozo, between arcane legal studies and the conduct of the people that law governs.

I just started my law school teaching career by teaching Torts, and I was a bit baffled at Cardozo's fame. Judge Posner explains the extent to which Cardozo stood head and shoulders above other jurists in notoriety, speculates why this is so, shows why Cardozo's reputation as a Supreme Court justice is dimmer than his reputation as a state judge, and dissects Cardozo's opinions. I thought that his discussion of Cardozo's literary style was especially masterful, as was his explanation of Cardozo's advantages in obtaining a great reputation.

The only part of the book I found lacking was Posner's discussion of individual cases, which was a bit less exciting than the rest of the book. Before reading the book I was not convinced that the infarmous Palsgraf case deserved its notoriety-- and I still don't get the Palsgraf mystique that seems to entrance so many other law professors and lawyers.

This book was a great help to me getting through Federal Courts in addition to my textbook. As any law student can tell you, Federal Courts or Federal Jurisdiction probably outranks civil procedure as the most dreaded class at law school. I am a firm believer in the importance of the subject and this book was invaluable to me in class and in work. If you have a legal problem that will involve federal litigation, this book is a must have. It makes a subject that I often believe is as clear as reading tea leaves a little easier.

All of the thousands of law school study guides tout themselves as a means of breaking down the often complex material for students. Unfortunately, however, few are able to accomplish that goal, as the study guides themselves are often almost as large as the casebooks and do little to demystify law school courses. Chemerinsky's text is a refreshing change, as his Federal Jurisdiction hornbook helps you understand what is universally seen as the hardest course in law school, Federal Courts.

Federal Courts is such a difficult class because of the sheer complexity of the material. Sadly, many students, me included, are forced to use Hart and Wechsler's Federal Courts casebook which is itself very difficult to learn from (for reasons I discuss in my review of that book). Many casebooks try to go over too much: they spend time on general principles, certainly, but often get caught up in discussing every single case with some relevance to the course, with less focus on hammering down an understanding of the general principles. Hart and Wechsler is a prime example of this. Their casebook is difficult to digest because there is so much to learn. Their endnotes are filled to the brim with hundreds of cases, many of which are unnecessary to obtain a general understanding of the course. And let's be honest, while these cases might be vital for aspiring future clerks taking Federal Courts, not all of us are clerking for the D.C. Circuit anytime soon.

Chemerinsky's hornbook very adequately solves this problem. Of all of the study guides and hornbooks I have perused in law school, Chemerinsky's book helped guide me the most, in what is the hardest class I have taken. In well-defined sections, Chemerinsky breaks down the daunting Federal Courts in a manner that is easy to read and ultimately understand. Chemerinsky clearly as well as concisely lays out a framework for each of the key bedrock principles of Federal Courts and federal jurisdiction without getting caught up in going over every possible case with implications for federal courts. Chemerinsky does discuss the key exceptions as well as minor cases, but they flow very well with his general discussions of the base material of Federal Courts. His book, therefore, was extremely easy to absorb and helped me immensely in understanding Federal Courts.

I was often bewildered and perplexed by the material discussed in Hart and Wechsler and in class lectures. Chemerinsky's book tore down much of my confusion by helping me focus on the key concepts of Federal Courts, and not getting lost in the forest of cases delineated by the casebook and by my professor. I strongly recommend that any student taking Federal Courts buy this book. It is invaluable to learning the course. You would be doing yourself a disservice if you did not take a look at Chemerinsky.

If you plan on taking Federal Courts, get this book. Even if you are a genius or a masochist and would prefer to go hard-core and use only Hart and Wechsler, get this book anyway. Seriously, just get it. :-)

I'm a very average law student, and my federal courts class was stacked with the top 2nd and 3rd year students in my school. Despite this, I got the highest grade in the class. The reason...this book.

Chemerinsky is able to take a complicated topic that takes 50 pages of a textbook to explain, and summarize it in a single paragraph.

This single most impressive book I have encountered in 3 years of law school. And if you plan to practice in the federal court system, this book is essential. Buy it.

As usual, Chemerinsky provides a clear and concise summary of this area of law. Practitioners and law students alike will find it to be a valuable reference tool. Like his treatise on Constitutional law, Chemerinsky has a unique ability to briefly encapsulate lengthy and sometimes conflicting Supreme Court precedent. I read it as a practitioner, but I'm sure law students will find it to be a helpful, though expensive supplement.

The book does fail in maintaining any semblance of objectivity when it comes to the scope of federal judicial power. Although arguments are mechanically given for both sides of an issue, one gets the impression that Chemerinsky, in his weaker moments, would love to get rid of the 11th Amendment, standing requirements, amount in controversy requirements, and any other obstacle to a federal court's ability to hear a case.

clear, concise...a pleasure. made my name change easy. thanks nolo!

The 7th edition of this book was my main reference as I successfully completed a legal name change. It did a good job helping me through the process without the assistance of a lawyer ("In Pro Per"). I would also suggest finding a good paralegal to help in typing up the forms.

This book packs a wallup!
It was complete, concise, and easy to follow.
I definately could not of made the change without the help of this book.
I do not recommend trying to change your name without this - it walks you through from A to Z, not missing a beat.

Excellent book.

Well written, containing all the neccessary information and forms, this book is an invaluable resource for those individuals who are interested in legally changing their name in California.

Pro's and con's are examined about Court Ordered Name Changes and Common Usage methodologies. Well thought out and written in a very readable and comprehensive style...this book answers almost any question you may have regarding the implications of changing you name.

Highly recommended....by far, the best book I have seen on the market around this issue.

I'm really enamored of Nolo Press's self-help legal guides. This one saved me $400 in legal fees. Just follow the steps outlined and it will guide you safely through even a court hearing, if you want to be able to change your passport. If, in the process, you decide you want to change any deeds your old name appears on, you can use their quite inexpensive guide to updating Deeds in California. As for typing up the forms -- neat printing does the job, too.

Epstein and Segal have produced an easy to read primer on the judicial appointment process. The authors show the intertwining influences of the President and Senate and their role in the ideology and politics of the justices and (to a lesser extent) judges approved to sit on U.S. federal courts.

Common sense dictates that Presidents nominate nominees who are close ideologically to their own views. Epstein and Segal show this to be true. Common sense would also dictate the difficulty if such considerations are taken into account as a president nominating a judge to the state where senators of his own party hold seats (and senatorial courtesy plays a stronger role), if the senate and president are of differing parties, and so forth.

Epstein and Segal have produced a primer for those interested in motivations in nominations to the court and the inherently political considerations that must be taken into account. I highly recommend this book.

"This is a superb and even indispensable resource. Careful, precise, objective, and nugget-filled, it's a wonderful guide to past, present, and future debates. If you want to know about judicial appointments, this is the best place to start." -- Cass R. Sunstein, University of Chicago Law School

"An important and timely study that adds an essential framework for understanding contemporary slugfests over judicial appointments. Beautifully presented and argued." -- Louis Fisher, author of American Constitutional Law

"Lee Epstein's and Jeffrey Segal's new book could not be more timely. It provides the most comprehensive and systematic examination to date of the roles of politics and ideology in Supreme Court selection. It is indispensable reading for anyone interested in how justices and judges decide cases, the limits of legal reasoning, and the contributions of social science to better understanding how the Supreme Court functions." - Michael J. Gerhardt, author of The Federal Impeachment Process

"Writing in pristine, jargon-free language, Epstein and Segal...inject some much-needed context and evidence into the current debate about judicial appointments." -- The American Prospect

"Epstein and Segal...draw together a wealth of research and empirical findings from a plethora of studies, many of which they authored, and fold them into a compelling narrative that examines all levels of the judiciary.... This book combines the best features of past studies on judicial appointments. It is also very accessible for students and citizens interested in the judicial branch." -- Law and Politics Book Review

"Thoughtful and illuminating.... Qualifications matter-as much today as they have in the past. (In that sense, President Bush might have done well to read Advice and Consent before nominating the ill-fated Miers.)? -- Chronicle of Higher Education

"A thorough look at the process, politics and presidential aspects of court appointments. Witty yet well-informed, Professors Epstein and Segal give an insight into the whys and wherefores of federal judge appointments." -- www.mayitpleasethecourt.com

Over the last five years, we have seen a consistent debate concerning judicial appointments and politics ranging from the filibusters over circuit nominees to the recent Roberts and Alito nominations. The persistent myth is that the outright influence of partisan politics on judicial nominations is a new development; that prior to the last 30 years or so, judicial nominees were only judged on the basis of qualifications and not ideology. In this book, two preeminent political scientists demonstrate that this is empirically false: while qualifications are not irrelevant, the consistently dominant factor in judicial appointments has always been politics, especially on the Supreme Court. One has only to point to the very first nomination defeated in 1795 when Washington's nominee for chief justice was defeated because he supported a politically unpopular treaty. What Epstein and Segal demonstrate is that political concerns infuse the appointments process from the very beginning and the voting of judges, at least on the Supreme Court, usually correlates to the political beliefs of the appointing president. Usefully, they also examine the lower federal courts in demonstrating how various political factors come into play in these comparatively understudied courts.

In total, Epstein and Segal have produced an excellent, brief study that is empirically sound and unbiased. While current Republicans are shown to be hypocrites, the same is dealt to Democrats. For example, many of the Democrats pushing filibusters recently complained strongly against this practice when Republicans used it in the 90s; many Republicans who complained about stalling in the Bush I administration, used the same tactics during the Clinton years and then changed the rules to make the Bush II administration's appointments easier. This is a treasure trove of empirical analysis of appointments that will not disappoint anyone looking for the facts of the situation instead of partisan talking points.

This is just an extraordinary book on judicial appointments written by two distinguished political scientists with decades of experience studying the federal courts. While it obviously is primarily designed to be a brief (168 pages, including the extensive notes) introduction to the process of judicial selection for the general reader, it skillfully incorporates some of the most significant research findings drawn from professional journals and papers. As a result, even those who are somewhat familiar with the topic and the professional literature will derive some valuable new insights. The writing is brisk and moves quickly and smoothly through the material, with the assistance of some helpful charts. In addition, the book's coverage is not limited to the Supreme Court but covers all three levels of the federal judiciary. One nice feature is that some interesting statistical data from "The Supreme Court Compendium," edited by one of the co-authors, are sprinkled throughout the discussion (e.g., no more than 20% of lower court nominations have generated any opposition). The authors' discussion of "do Presidents get what they want?" in making nominations, and if so, for how long, is particularly effective. After all, how accurately can Presidents, Senators or the rest of us predict how a nominee will perform once safely on the bench? A most timely contribution given the current Roberts nomination process and the unknown Associate Justice nominee yet to come.

The Federal Impeachment Process is described in this book. Fortunately, we have not utilized this method of removal often, so there is not a lot of precident established. While this is one of the three most authoritative sources on the subject, I wish that the author had described in greater detail some of the precidents in English law, the thinking of the framers, contrasts with state impeachment procedures, and a more thorough procedural analysis of impeachment cases brought before the House and Senate ... Next book, maybe? At any rate, this is an excellent book, one certainly worth the used price!

This is a book for the serious political participant and observer. It is technical in its nature although fairly easy to read and comprehend. Gerhardt is straightforward in his purpose: (1) provide readers with a historical perspective on Federal impeachment processes and (2) provide readers with necessary information on just what impeachment means and how the process works. He achieves both purposes very well. Since there is at least a possibility of one Congressional house changing party control in November, and that the new party in control (Democrats) likely will call for the impeachment of George W. Bush, citizens should be well informed on what the process means and how it impacts their nation. This book is an excellent choice for becoming so informed.

The last major treatments of impeachment were written by Raoul Berger and Charles Black a quarter century ago. Yet, in fact, quite a bit has happened since then: though no Presidents have been impeached (so far), cases involving federal judges in particular have made new law and raised new questions. Gerhardt's book goes into more depth than either Black or Berger, and provides an excellent guide to a wide range of issues. Gerhardt is more a Blackian than a Bergerian -- heavily influenced by structure and relationship, and prone to avoid judicial review of impeachment in most circumstances. An excellent book, and well-written.

Thought provoking and clearily written. While primarily limited in scope to impeachment of federal judges (because more cases exist), the information on the origin of the impeachment provisions in the federal Constitution and the thinking behind the adoption of the provisions by the framers is relevant to issues of presidential impeachment. The reader will find that it is useful as a guide to following the current hearings of the House Judiciary Committee as the members refer to precedents and history.

Prof. Gerhardt includes excellent signposts for further research into the innumerable Constitutional questions raised. The work is a well-constructed combination of law text and book for the general reader with a scholarly turn of mind. Each section is prefaced by a brief statement of its objective of the sort found at the start of scholarly papers. The annotations and bibliography arewell done.

The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which had a brief surge of popularity recently due to the eminent domain case of Kelo v. New London, reads: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Epstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago, begins his book by examining briefly the purpose of the clause and the power of eminent domain, invoking Lockean and Hobbesian theories of the state. After a cursory look at originalist theories of constitutional interpretation, dismissed as unworkable, Epstein has distilled the clause down to its theoretical underpinnings. This is the stepping point, the beginning of a masterful journey through American jurisprudence, which touches upon such varied fields as nuisance, tort, regulation, welfare, taxation, and police power.

His theory is simple in its particulars, essentially reduced to a few theories of representative government: 1. the state stands no better legally than the citizens it represents: its rights are merely the rights of its citizens in summation, and 2. the change in wealth from the primordial state of nature to the civilized body under government must not only increase, but the proportion between the shares of each individual must remain the same: that is to say, the distribution matters as rightly as the sum.

Simple as his premises are, the book is by no means humble in its application, and his conclusions are in no sense lacking for justification. Epstein's logic is buttressed at every turn by law review articles, often complex economic analyses, and veins of political science. His conclusions are not incontrovertible, but they are indeed mighty.

He brings this approach to what seems to be nearly every aspect of common and constitutional law (antitrust law being the one exception I noticed), all through the eye of the clause. Chapters stand on their own: one is barely aware of the arch of the grand overall argument until the final chapters, when the logic calmly leads us down lanes to ends we would dare not consider at the beginning of the book. But even then the approach is characteristically precise, honest, and stark.

The case is made for a society more libertarian, but it is not borne from the insipid koan of "non-aggression," but rather structured upon modern economic analytic techniques, the lessons of the common law, calculus both utilitarian and Kantian. Nevertheless, this is, to be sure, a legal book, despite the invasion of philosophy and social science. Supreme Court cases are introduced and appraised, Latin terms of art are utilized, the earthy grounding of common law precedent and principles will never be far away. It is only in the final and initial chapters that Epstein examines explicitly political philosophy, Nozickian, Rawlsian, and civil republican theories, and the implications his arguments bear when considered by their lights.

The legal center of the book will doubtlessly make it easier for lawyers to digest. The political implications will doubtlessly make it a better meal for libertarians than other political classes. Nevertheless, the layman will find much within to pique his interest (or enrage it), and any one with an appreciation of the excellent would do well to admire Epstein's arguments.

Something must be said for the author's style; it is certainly an academic one. Epstein does not use excess words, and will not waste ink restating a point already made. Superfluous sentences have not been included: every phrase exists as a necessary brick in the overall argument. The author throws no lifelines to his readers if they are confused, does not repeat what you were foolish enough to briskly skim over before, nor does he flash italics or CAPS when his points are particularly important. His manner is confident, never arrogant. If his argument has a weakness, he acknowledges the weakness and moves on without wasting more words. For example, perhaps my favorite passage:


But there is in fact good reason to recognize the practical strengths of the maxim [a common law principle of riparian rights], even if it does not capture an ultimate truth. That the rule bridges the gap between is and ought is hardly a demerit, for every rule of entitlement so functions. Better there be a connection between is and ought than no connection between ought and anything of interest in the external world. For dealing with the eminent domain clause, it is surely preferable to recognize a system of rights already in place than to invent one to replace it.

It is a dense and rewarding style. And it is a dense and rewarding read. Those looking for a comprehensive judicial philosophy may find it here entirely; those who already have one will find much to assimilate into the whole.

The final lines, which trickle by with characteristic understatement, and the final snap of the book's covers, left me in awe. I cannot recommend Takings highly enough.

The human right to own and use property is a bedrock of our basic values and freedoms. Epstein's classic book is a seminal (and accessible) analysis of the complex legal and philosophical issues involved. Its original publication in the mid-1980s was also an important political event; it helped trigger the current movement to reinvigerate the right to property, in the Congress and in the Courts. With the Del Monte Dunes case up in the Supreme Court, the argument is getting even hotter. Takings is essential for anyone who wants to understand the issues.

James V. DeLong

This fine book by Prof. Richard Epstein has probably been more influential than the casual reader may be aware.

The heart of Epstein's claim is that _anything_ the government does that imposes any sort of "cost" on anybody amounts to a "taking" for which the Constitution requires just compensation. We all know how this is supposed to work as applied to the usual exercise of eminent domain. But Epstein casts his net wide and argues that the takings clause applies to all sorts of things you never would have thought of -- welfare programs, rent control, jiggery-pokery with the national currency, you name it.

The impact of the book is evident mainly through "negative" evidence. For example, some readers may recall that during the Clarence Thomas hearings, somebody asked Thomas if he believed the stuff in this book (as the Congresscritter in question clearly did not). I think Thomas managed to duck the question, but the point was made. And at any rate, it tells you something that somebody found it important to _ask_ the question in the first place.

Then, too, my own property-law casebook remarks somewhere near the end that Epstein's views on "takings" have not been found convincing by too many people. Interesting that the book still finds it necessary to mention his work, then.

So check it out. Sure, it's radical, and (let's admit it frankly) it's probably not a correct interpretation of the framers' intent. But if you're not a tax-and-spend Congresscritter, maybe you'll find it as pregnant and alluring a suggestion as I do. And it's one of Epstein's best books; I think he wrote it before he had completely converted to utilitarianism. You don't have to agree with it, but you should at least learn why Federalistas are afraid of it.

The author of takings sorts out some vital issues. This book sorts out eminent domain issues, based on a clearly described economic theory of government. Epstein settles the 'Lockean Proviso' issue, and reasons through many other issues. For example, he makes the case for flat taxes over so called progressive taxes. But above all, this book establishes that anything that the government does constitutes a taking of some kind, and takings are only justified in very limited circumstances.

Takings is the best reasoned critique of modern transfer states that I have seen. This is one of a few books that has really changed the way I think about political economy. Every Law and Public Policy student should read this book, as should David Souter.

This book is indispensible to an employee who is beaten down by the corporate world for reporting a violation in good faith of unethical or unlawful matter . I was cast into the stormy sea of politics without a hope of survival until I was tossed this book; my only life preserver in a corrupt world.

Regards and my respect to the author ;

This book is indispensible to an employee who is beaten down by the corporate world for reporting a violation in good faith of unethical or unlawful matter . I was cast into the stormy sea of politics without a hope of survival until I was tossed this book; my only life preserver in a corrupt world.

Regards and my respect to the author ;

If you're a whistleblower, and you are not familiar with Concepts and Procedures in Whistleblower Law by Mr. Kohn, you are at a serious disadvantage already. I had no idea what I was up against. I was getting clobbered by the system at every turn. The information in this book evens the playing field quickly.
Mr. Kohn leads you through the maze of mistakes that you're going to make, and allows you to gain control of your situation.
It's written for everyone to read. I read it overnight.
When you get done reading it, get a copy for your lawyer.
The amount of information contained in this book will assist both of you immediately. A RARE find. Thank you Mr. Kohn.

Meeting Procedures: Parliamentary Law And Rules Of Order For the 21st Century by certified professional parliamentarian James Lochrie is a no-nonsense reference to the terms and procedures for organizing debate among large bodies of human beings, whether in committees of representative government or on a corporate business board of directors. Discussing the mechanics of motions, voting methods, nominations, orders of business and more, Meeting Procedures is an absolute "must-read" for anyone seeking to master the basics of these formal principles in order to better participate and communicate in business or civic meetings of any size and of diverse complexities.

This book is ideal for the president of any of the many volunteer and professional organizations across the country. Explanations of the rules governing meeting procedures are easy to understand and put into use. Mr. Lochrie takes complicated concepts and simplfies them so even an inexperienced presiding officer can run a meeting effectively and efficiently.

Lochrie's "Meeting Procedures" is a good alternative to Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR). Both of these books are intended to be adopted by organizations as the parliamentary authority, but no matter what authority you use, "Meeting Procedures" is a valuable addition to the presiding officers bookshelf.

Where RONR has pages of rules for special cases (which ~do~ come up), Lochrie takes a different approach. A group using "Meeting Procedures" will find special rules are easier to adopt (2/3 vote, no notice), so that special cases can be handled by individual groups with special rules as they are required, allowing the book to be more streamlined. For example, there are no rules in this book on disciplinary procedures (trials). These things (thankfully) rarely come up, and an organization using Lochrie's book could adopt special rules for the proceedings when and if they do.

Elections, something that does come up, is thoroughly covered, including detailed examples. Also covered is the interesting subject of "election paradoxes", and how to cope with them with various voting methods (e.g. the Borda count).

Included with the book are a section with answers to some common parliamentary questions, sample minutes, a sample committee report and sample convention rules. One thing that seems to be missing is a sample set of bylaws, but one can find such things on the internet (with varying degrees of quality though!).

Overall, a wonderful book, even if your group prefers RONR or another authority.

I have recently wanted to understand our government better. I think this is particularly important since our rights as Americans are not well understood and thus in danger of being lost at this point in our country's history. This book made the subject extremely clear. The intents and background of our forefathers were communicated in such a way that the document came alive for me. Thank you Mr. Kluge for this important book. I recommend it for all students of our government, young and old!

The Constitution - perhaps America's most important document. But what does it actually all mean to the modern, every day America? "The People's Guide to the United States Constitution" is a through and comprehensive guide put in the common terms that everyone can understand, free of the spin artists that readers so often see on political news programs. Presenting the original text of the document and then giving a complete run down to what it really means, it's a must for anyone who wishes to truly understand the United States Constitution. "The People's Guide to the United States Constitution" is a top pick for community library collections dealing with politics and easy to use guides.

I am a non-american citizen and I loved the way this book is written. Every american should read it, for sure. It is VERY enlighting.

Professor Quirk's Courts & Congress artfully traces the history of our Republic and takes the reader from the founding principles upon which our country was founded to our present state of affairs. Through what the author terms the Happy Convention he shows us how Congress has allowed the Supreme Court and the President to take away the power the founders so clearly wanted to rest with the people through their elected representatives.

Courts & Congress not only gives the reader an insightful analysis of the major Supreme Court decisions but explains to us how in so many cases these issues would have been better decided by Congress. Professor Quirk reminds us that constitutionally the Courts derive their powers from Congress and constitutionally the only cases where the Supreme Court was originally granted jurisdiction were cases between the states and those involving ambassadors. Likewise Professor Quirk succinctly explains how Congress has failed to curtail the President's ever increasing powers. This is notably illustrated by the author by the fact in recent years we have had three very unpopular wars Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq. Congress easily could have stopped these conflicts simply with the power of the purse or with legislation but did not have the will. The author ably contrasts these wars with World War II when the people through their elected representatives got behind the President and Congress through the constitutional process declared war.

Professor Quirk does a masterful job of providing historical insight not only to the constitutional scholar by carefully citing the founders beliefs and goals (largely from the Federalist Papers) but also brings a practical touch by explaining to the wider audience how the modern day hot button issues would be better resolved by the people through their elected representatives. He reminds us if the people have a say they are more likely to buy in to the result. Courts & Congress is a must read for anyone seriously interested in how we are governed, and how we can return to the type of government the founders envisioned.

Alan Reyner
Columbia, South Carolina

William Quirk's book, "Courts & Congress: America's Unwritten Constitution" reveals the unarticulated Gentlemen's Agreement between the Congress, the highest office of the Judiciary, and the Presidency. The author calls it "The Happy Convention". It is an unspoken arrangement between the U.S. Supreme Court and the Congress who, with the tacit approval of the President, arrange for the members of Congress almost never to have to take responsibility for legislation which might disaffect the voters. The author explains it fully and presents extensive and convincing proofs of its existence and application. A must-read for anybody interested in the duplicitous ways of our present-day Congress and the reason we will never have term limits and an end to gerrymandering.
Professor Quirk even makes a case for making The Happy convention legal by giving the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in all constitutional cases - in other words, wherever constitutional questions come into play simply accept the fact that the Supreme Court has supplanted Congress and has become the arbiter - for this reader at least, an unfortunate state of affairs in the evolution of our beloved Republic.
Thomas D. Cherubini MD