(Part 2) Best constitutional law books according to redditors
We found 372 Reddit comments discussing the best constitutional law books. We ranked the 132 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
I'm no expert on law. But from what I can read and understand the POTUS does not necessarily have to commit a 'crime' to be impeached. In other words he doesn't have to rob someone and then shank them.
High Crimes & Misdemeanors is a bit misleading as one would reasonably infer that it says so right in the title. However, the framers appropriated the High Crimes & Misdemeanors section from the British. In British law, they did not specify that you had to do this terrible thing, or that you had to commit that bad crime to be impeached. They left it somewhat vague and ambiguous. This was carried over to our law by the framers, who left it rather vague and ambiguous as well.
Understand that we've only been at this point what, eight times? And only two have stuck. So it's not like we have it all ironed out like a speeding ticket or what have you.
Yes, Trump's outlandish is deplorable and insidious.He is holding the American public hostage and inciting violence. Even as I type this, certain militia groups have readied themselves. Yes I hope one of two things happens. Either he is asked to seek employment elsewhere, or that this ties him up so much that he will loose the election. Hopefully reason will win the day.
I'm interested in what others have to say on the issue....especially those with a law background.
Reference:
https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/08/08/the-original-meaning-of-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-part-1/
Great book, just started reading it. Fascinating history. https://www.amazon.com/High-Crimes-Misdemeanors-History-Impeachment/dp/1108481051
https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html
> We are using the Charter, as I said, to uphold the Constitution.
Amazing how Caroline Mulroney, Ontario's AG, can say that with a straight face. This is a clause that specifically and exclusively suspends portions of the Constitution. It's in the goddamn name of the clause: "notwithstanding". You are using a legal avenue to temporarily strike down parts of the Constitution. It does not mean you are "upholding the Constitution".
> [Des Rosiers] said the Conservative government could end up having to effectively run the city if the legislation passes, 25 councillors are elected, and then the province loses at the Court of Appeal or in the Supreme Court.
Oh, I'm sure Ford would love to see that happen.
> Liberal MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers, one of the three co-editors of the 1,168-page Oxford Handbook of the Canadian Constitution, hushed the chamber Thursday with pointed questions for Attorney General Caroline Mulroney.
https://www.amazon.ca/Oxford-Handbook-Canadian-Constitution/dp/0190664819/
That MPP literally wrote the book on the Canadian Constitution
The Oxford Handbook of the Canadian Constitution https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0190664819/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_cRVMBbM7GXBZJ
I apologize in advance if I don't do this right, first time posting here. I think this is culture since this is part of an ongoing arguementation between "Classical Liberals" and "Liberal Conservatives" vs "Religious/Social Conservatives" to "Post-Liberals"
The True Con
​
>Though Will still claims to be a conservative, he has radically changed what he means by that term. In 1983’s Statecraft as Soulcraft, Will argued that government inevitably does legislate morality, and indeed “should do so more often.” He rejected “the idea that governments should be neutral in major conflicts about social values.” He denied that “the public interest is produced by the spontaneous cooperation of individuals making arrangements in free markets.” He confessed his “deviation from laissez-faire orthodoxy,” and announced, “It is time to come up from individualism.”
>
>In 2019’s The Conservative Sensibility, Will employs the same gentlemanly prose—to opposite ends. He states that government should refrain from “imposing its opinions about what happiness the citizens should choose to pursue.” He maintains that men should be “free to maximize their satisfactions according to their own hierarchy of preference.” He concludes that the public interest can, after all, be achieved “in the spontaneous order of a lightly governed society.” He frets over the fact that the poor pay no income tax, and describes the rich and corporations as “unpopular minorities.” He champions “individualism and the rights of the individual.”
>
>Will has remained remarkably consistent in his self-styling. In 1983, he lamented that America contained “almost no conservatives, properly understood.” Today, he again calls conservatism “a persuasion without a party.” His positions have changed, but his pose has not. He is still the lone True Conservative.
>
>In both, America is conflated with liberal individualism. In Statecraft as Soulcraft, Will therefore concludes that America was “ill founded.” In The Conservative Sensibility, he instead celebrates the founding as the first inbreaking of Hayek’s transcendent philosophy. In both cases, America is not so much a nation as an idea. This is Will’s one fixed point—and his fundamental error.
>
>Our foundations are broader and deeper than a single “founding” moment, tendentiously identified with the views of a few deistic slavers. William Bradford was one of our founders. So was Lord Baltimore. These men were communalists, not individualists; Christians, not liberals. For Will, they might as well not exist. He has spent his otherwise incoherent career propounding what Barry Shain, a professor of political science at Colgate University, calls “the myth of American individualism”—a myth that cannot survive contact with reality … the overwhelming majority of Americans at the time of the founding considered the individual “radically incomplete living outside an enveloping and ethically intensive community.” They believed that “the common or public good enjoyed preeminence over the immediate interests of individuals.”
>
>These Americans believed that property was not an absolute right, but a trust received from God to be used for all. The Vermont Declaration of Rights stated that “private property ought to be subservient to public use.” Benjamin Franklin, the most commercial of the framers, believed men had a natural right to whatever property was necessary “for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species.” But he also believed that “all property superfluous to such services is property of the public, who by their laws have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it.”
>
>...
>
>Will labors to discredit Chambers and Kirk because they challenge his claim that America is univocally liberal and ultimately secular. Like many other True Cons, he has chosen to ignore ... what Shain calls the “enduring, democratic, Christian, and communal” tradition of America.
>
>...
>
>Will's praise of liberalism would be more convincing if he did not claim for it the virtues of other things. He opens his book by describing the Battle of Princeton as an “illustration of the history-making role of individual agency.” The selfless deaths of American patriots are thus enlisted for the ideology of self-interest.
>
>He says that the universe itself is a testament to the godless miracle of spontaneous order, thereby giving his economic ideas an unearned religious sheen. He questions tradition, hierarchy, and religion, but seeks to drape their prestige around his ... philosophy
No, they absolutely don't. They *pretend* to care about precedent, but they overturn things all the time based on ideological beliefs and often rule against their own precedent, at least on important, ideologically divisive matters.
And that boils down to, as Eric Segall used for the title of a very good introduction book on the subject (though not the only one), that SCOTUS is not a court. It's a tribe of elders imposing value judgements when the Constitution has, by definition, no actual answers for the problems at hand (see: affirmative action, abortion, gun rights, etc.)
That's why a decision about, for example, if the printed currency of the United States is valid currency can be overruled within a year because one SCOTUS judge changed. Or why Scalia could overrule 200 years of precedent and declare in 2008 that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, even though we had clear, settled law that always declared that it was a collective one.
The way that they justify these decisions comes from different systems of value applications (living constitutionalism, one of the many different kinds of originalism, etc.) but it's all values, even if they like to pretend otherwise.
In fact, that the American public continues to perceive that SCOTUS IS a court and that it does care about precedence in contentious cases is one of the biggest cons of the American education system. And it's what keeps people from believing that the SCOTUS would ever overturn Roe because it's settled law, for instance, but the reality is they will overturn Roe in a heartbeat if Roberts decides it's OK politically.
SCOTUS is politics wherever the answers are not obvious.
Oh, and here's a great look into the gun control playbook: http://www.amazon.com/Disarmed-Missing-Movement-Control-America/dp/069113832X.
I found a copy in a university library. Despite the low reviews (probably from pro-gunners), it's a fascinating peak into the gears of statism and anti-liberty activism. Know thy enemy as thyself.
Because they are ignorant of our Constitution...
Mark Levin, in my opinion, is considered a leader in this movement.
You should read his book The Liberty Amendments since you are interested in the topic. Many people think it’s the only real path to saving our country
Since you asked, you're getting down-voted because:
Again, I'm immersed in Trump/Russia at the moment. So two recommendations to understand how we got here:
​
https://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190663995
​
https://www.amazon.com/Liberals-J-Edgar-Hoover-Intelligence/dp/0691077932/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=liberals+and+j+edgar+hoover&qid=1555527792&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmrnull
As you say, "pushes." Well anybody can get pushed in the cafeteria or the hallway. You don't have to do things because somebody pushed you.
You have to look at the larger picture: what happens to school personnel who do NOT push college? Are they not limiting the ambition of the kids? Are they doing their job properly? No. Meaning: they HAVE to say these things. They MUST push this.
Yes, it is tough on the young and inexperienced.
So I DO sympathize.
However. There are other ways to be educated than asking an institution to make you educated.
Just as a hospital can't make you healthy, a school can't make you educated. You have to take charge. Institutions can help, and intervene supportively, but they can't do the job.
Edit: for instance, there is this:
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Constitutional-Law-Supreme-Everyone/dp/1543813909/ref=as_li_ss_tl?crid=23Z7ZHP2FUTV8&keywords=100+supreme+court+cases+everyone+should+know&qid=1567999641&s=gateway&sprefix=100+supreme+court+c,aps,185&sr=8-1&linkCode=sl1&tag=insta0c-20&linkId=f29ea0388e4c1c0c961d5355a7ed97d9&language=en_US
That doesn't make you a lawyer, but a very smart undergrad level person, if you ponder all of it.
here's a Constitution written by citizens (of Iceland) last year:
http://stjornlagarad.is/other_files/stjornlagarad/Frumvarp-enska.pdf
Our Constitution was written in the 18th century for an 18th century world - it well past needing an update. Several Constitutional scholars write about it, nobody is doing anything about it:
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Undemocratic-Constitution-People-Correct/dp/0195365577/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333636354&sr=8-1
I see that Amazon UK is showing a 1-3 month delay: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Constitutional-Law-Supreme-Everyone/dp/1543813909/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1572378116&sr=8-1
Have you tried the Kindle version?
You can also access the ebook here:http://bit.ly/100CasesEbook
For information about government institutions:
Protecting Canadian Democracy: the Senate You Never Knew---a compilation of papers on the Senate, on upper houses in general, and on Senate reform. Put together by Senator Serge Joyal.
Governing from the Bench: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Role---by Emmett MacFarlane, a very good analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada and its role in modern lawmaking.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice---also known as O'Brien & Bosc after its editors, the House of Commons procedural reference manual and roughly the Canadian equivalent of the seminal Erskine May. The manual includes a comprehensive coverage of the institutions of government, especially as they relate to Parliament and lawmaking, and good coverage of parliamentary privilege. Don't dismiss it out of hand for being a procedural manual; the parts on the structure of the government are surprisingly accessible.
This might not be exactly what you're looking for, but I found the Glannon guides helpful for a more interactive study aid. They have sections explaining the legal concepts followed by multiple choice questions with detailed explanations of which answer is right. I haven't actually used the Con ones yet (although I'm planning to before my exam), but I found them really useful for other subjects because they engage my brain more than just reading something. There's two for Con - one dealing with Governmental Structure and Powers and one for Individual Rights.
You should read this
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0981559697/ref=pd_aw_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=N3C7KCY417GKAT39EX4Z
And when you're wondering what went wrong, read this
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B007M5V5ZK/ref=s9_top_hm_awbw_b2sT_g129_i4?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=mobile-hybrid-11&pf_rd_r=PKWC7VRTW6P478C63MQ0&pf_rd_t=30901&pf_rd_p=d9d33cb3-f873-5872-97af-cee41658783b&pf_rd_i=11065
I can't believe what I'm seeing here. This is actually advocated by Mark Levin and covered in chapter 4 of his book, "The Liberty Amendments." He also calls for a super-majority legislative override of supreme court decisions.
I completely agree even though I know our motives would not line up at all.
Okay first guy got it right but if I'm good at anything its working smarter not harder. DONT get Chemerinsky, amazon prime or get your ass to a book store that sells this go through it and understand the core of the cases, go watch the barbri lectures that are keyed to your semester, take fucking notes, you put your self in a corner so no fucking time to slack. Then go to the library or bookstore and get this And do EVERY SINGLE FUCKING QUESTION, the multiple choice took me like 4 hours to get through at a slow pace. and take 30 min for the essays, for efficiency sake do the multiple choice questions first. Good luck.... you'll fucking need it.
I’d make sure to do every practice question in the Glannon Guide
Edit: and thoroughly read the explanations regardless of whether I answered the question right or wrong, in addition to normal studying
I'm late to the party here, but there is a very relevant book on this:
"Nussbaum argues that disgust has long been among the fundamental motivations of those who are fighting for legal discrimination against lesbian and gay citizens. When confronted with same-sex acts and relationships, she writes, they experience "a deep aversion akin to that inspired by bodily wastes, slimy insects, and spoiled food--and then cite that very reaction to justify a range of legal restrictions, from sodomy laws to bans on same-sex marriage." Leon Kass, former head of President Bush's President's Council on Bioethics, even argues that this repugnance has an inherent "wisdom," steering us away from destructive choices. Nussbaum believes that the politics of disgust must be confronted directly, for it contradicts the basic principle of the equality of all citizens under the law."
I'm gay and know that many of my straight guy friends probably have this same reaction when they see me kiss my boyfriend hello or goodbye. I also know that they are amazing allies.
It's very hard to check your gut. All you can do is recognize that visceral reaction as irrational. It'll lessen over time.
> much of 'conservative' thought is founded in an unwillingness to contribute ANY money/privilege/power to better the whole of society. That is to say, it is founded in a libertarian fantasy that individuals pursing their own self-interest, without any interference from the state, will lead to greater flourishing for the whole of society.
You seem to be conflating conservatism and libertarianism. Conservatives are generally open to reforms that would better society, provided they are done conservatively.
> This manifests most concretely in an aversion to ... disruption of existing social hierarchies.
The very definition of conservatism is aversion to such disruptions. That's not a drawback of conservatism, it's a feature. Indeed, it's the central feature.
> To me this is an intellectually ignorant view of society, (so much so that it makes me wonder if it is even held in good-faith), as it completely ignores the impact that the pursuit of self-interest has on others, or the existence of societally constructed hierarchies that privilege some individuals over others.
Actually it is a more realistic view of society, as it regards hierarchies as inevitable. Furthermore, conservative ethics includes reasoning about authority, as it is obvious someone must be in charge; whereas progressive ethics tends to only consider harm.
Have you read either of these recent books?
https://www.amazon.com/Conservatism-Invitation-Tradition-Roger-Scruton/dp/1250170567/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=conservatism&qid=1562695659&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Sensibility-George-F-Will/dp/0316480932/ref=zg_bs_5571265011_11?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=3J41NQTHAKT706YBGNQZ
I have been meaning to read these 2 books on Indian constitution by Austin Granville, based on a recommendation from someone whom I immensely respect. Just putting it out here, if anyone is interested.
https://www.amazon.in/Indian-Constitution-Cornerstone-Classic-Reissue/dp/0195649591
https://www.amazon.in/dp/0195656105/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=cd818f9c-142a-4b42-ad2c-f0421857aaf5&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0195649591&pf_rd_m=A1VBAL9TL5WCBF&pf_rd_r=4M06M7MV874QAVFA2A0V&pf_rd_r=4M06M7MV874QAVFA2A0V&pf_rd_p=cd818f9c-142a-4b42-ad2c-f0421857aaf5
More information about the author of these books, https://soundcloud.com/vclp/150722-003mp3
Impeachment: A Handbook by Charles Black is short (around 80 pages), and extremely readable for the lay person.
In short, not all crimes are impeachable offenses, and not all impeachable offenses are crimes.
Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:
amazon.co.uk
amazon.ca
amazon.com.au
amazon.in
amazon.com.mx
amazon.de
amazon.it
amazon.es
amazon.com.br
amazon.nl
amazon.co.jp
Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.
I never intended to say that people shouldnt learn any other language than their mother tongue. Studying other cultures is necessary these days. But refusing to learn the local language and demanding that everybody else should accomodate them, is a colonial attitude and not an Indian one. As such, it is very ugly to see Hindi speakers display such attitudes when they go into a non-Hindi speaking region.
One should also realise that throughout history, no two languages have coexisted peacefully without one trying to dominate the other. In such a scenario, the language which has official sanction tends to wipe out the local one, as is the case of Britain and France which transitioned from multicultural to monocultural nations over the past 200 yrs. They werent born monocultural but became one, after the govt. decided that one language (the language of the majority) will be spoken by all. I do not want India to become like these countries. Also, as the example of Pakistan and Soviet Union have shown, getting everybody to speak a language for the benefit of the politically powerful, doesnt unify them in anyway but breaks up the country.
Secondly, you are confusing "official language" (meant for bureaucrats) with "national language" (meant for citizens). Something most Indians (esp. Northeners) are prone to do given the prevalance of the "Hindi Rashtra" myth.
I never read the source for that wikipedia quote, so I dont know if the source actually says so, but this is my source.
The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of A Nation
The author Granville Austin, was physically present during the Constitutional debates and was awarded a Padma Sri for his two books on the Indian Constitution. His work has also been quoted in Supreme Court judgements on Constitutional matters, in determination of our Founders intent.
The language question generated the longest debate and is the largest chapter in his book.
Quoting directly
>The Hindi-wallahs were ready to risk splitting the Assembly and the country in their unreasoning pursuit of uniformity. They thus denied the Assembly's belief in the concept of accommodation and in decision-making by consensus. The Assembly members preferred to take decision by consensus or by as near to unanimity as possible. Not only was this method deeply embedded in the Indian tradition, it was manifestly the most practical way to frame the Constitution. A system of governance would not work effectively, Assembly members knew, if large segments of the population were opposed to it. Every attempt had to be made, therefore, to achieve the broadest possible agreement. The Hindi-wallahs, however, announced that they would impose Hindi on the country if they had a one-vote majority. To prevent this, the moderates went to great lengths to find a compromise. They ultimately acquiesced in the language provisions, although they were not happy with them, in the hope that they would provide a framework within which an amicable settlement would be reached. The moderates' fears that the extremists had not accepted the provisions in the spirit of consensus have, unfortunately, been borne out. Since 1950 the extremists have continued to scorn the spirit and have pursued their original aims on the basis of the letter of the Constitution, ignoring the intention of the compromise, which was to resolve the language issue without unduly harming the interests of any linguistic group.
Hindi speakers didnt give two hoots abt Indian unity and merely wanted to create their own "linguistic Rashtra", unlike every other cultural group who wanted a multicultural India where all languages are treated equally, without preference being shown to any language. But to keep the Hindi heartland within India, a compromise was made (as noted in your source) and Hindi was given official language status as a sop, alongside English.
There never was any requirement for Indians to learn Hindi because it is our "national language" or "official language" or "lingua franca" or whatever nonsense.
Have you checked out Siegel's outlines yet? https://www.amazon.com/Siegels-Constitutional-Law-Essay-Choice/dp/1454809256
https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html
http://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/the-constitution-and-slavery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#Removal_of_exclusions
What is the 'current' understanding of the Constitution? This doesn't make sense in light of the fact that the dominant method of Constitutional interpretation is to precisely either look at the words usage at the time of the drafting OR at the founders supplementary debates (indeed, the two biggest sources are 18th century dictionaries & the Federalist papers).
Here are some interesting works on constitutional interpretation & history:
https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Faith-Sanford-Levinson/dp/0691152403
https://www.amazon.com/Our-Undemocratic-Constitution-People-Correct/dp/0195365577/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Finance-Speculation-Foreclosures-Discovering/dp/0292757530
Even if criticizing America isn't key to elections, this doesn't make it false. That said, elections are not my goal. In addition, one of the biggest obstacles to revolution is the idea that revolutions are impossible--organization triumphs.
PS: I strongly suggest a deep, thoughtful reading of https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H9HSW4D/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
The two authors are tenured professors whom have deeply studied damn near every living, and dead democracy on earth.
> And another follow-up question: why treat a memo like an actual law?
Sit through a legal discussion on it (there are a few on youtube). It's actually a very complicated question. As weird as it sounds, it's not clear-cut. There's several good articles on it, but here's a fairly big one on lawfare. And the underlying arguments are also found (or supported) in Impeachment: A Handbook.
The first link above also directly argues in support of the OLC Opinion memo because it is not a memo about policy (as many people are treating it) but a memo that summarizes legal precedent and sound legal opinion. Those are two very different things. The memo's conclusions could be wrong (and hopefully are, in my opinion), but it should not be simply disregarded because it doesn't conclude what we want it to.
The most experienced and knowledgeable lawyers in the country are not strictly in agreement about whether the indictment of a president is Constitutional. That, to me, is really an important fact we can't forget.
I DO think the question needs to be tried in some way to resolve it for the future. I ALSO think Trump needs to be impeached and removed from office ASAP so we don't worry about trying it with him.
>A constitution prevents certan laws from being written and invalidates certain laws (generally very new ones, the first time their application is appealed up to the highest court). What it does not do is induce the passing of new laws.
I gave you an example with Canada where the SCC compelled parliament to write new legislation concerning assisted suicide. They also compelled government to write legislation concerning prostitution. Governing from the Bench is an academic book by professor Emmett Macfarlane about the role that the SCC and the courts in general play in legislation and governance in Canada.
Beyond that, norms can be a prohibition on certain actions or behaviors. Striking down legal restrictions in line with social norms is just as much changing a law as writing new legislation.
>Laws are written by elected representatives, those elected because they reflect the norms of the country. The intention is that any law passed reflects the norms of that country.
That's certainly the idea in theory, but it doesn't always work out like that. Access to political institutions and representatives is a huge and often forgotten factor. A 10 year study by two political scientists found that upwards of 90% of new legislation in municipal, state, and federal legislative bodies benefited those in the top 10% of wealth, providing some evidence for a theory in political science and sociology known as elite theory. Elite theory holds that pluralistic democracy is either a utopian folly or can't be realized within a capitalist system where those in positions of economic privilege and power can exert a large amount of control over the legislative and policy decisions of governments.
But even if you reject that wholesale, depending on the political structure that's being dealt with. For example, Canada has a parliamentary political system with three major parties. A minority government may very well compromise with the third place party and present and pass legislation against certain social norms in order to ensure that third party's vote. Or the opposite might happen. In Canada a majority government may only have a plurality of the popular vote but a majority of the seats in the HoC. That means that they are able to pass legislation unopposed (due to strong party loyalty) that could very well be against collective beliefs and values of a majority of the populace.
There are more ways than that. Access to representatives and political institutions can be exceptionally useful for unpopular legislative changes, which can be done through lobbying. The role of funding and campaign financing has the potential to present a conflict of interest for politicians. The list goes on and on.
>A constitution is a force against change. It might prevent a law being written despite being reflective of the country's norms but it cannot create a law that contradicts them.
But it is changing the law, which is what this whole debate has been about. It's not just about writing laws, it's about changing them.
>The rarity of referendums and (in some places) requirement for more than a simple majority are further forces against change. They mean that norms must swing even further before certain aspects of the law will change.
But referendums aren't the norm for most legislative, legal, and political issues. Pointing to the fact that they exist does not in any way undermine or rebut anything that I've said at all.
Do you have a particular area of policy you’re interested in? I remember enjoying Death by a Thousand Cuts (about the estate tax) and Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America when I read them in grad school.
What sort of policy do you want to read about? Or are you more interested in the policy process overall?
https://www.amazon.com/Gun-Debate-Everyone-Needs-Know®/dp/019933899X/
So you're saying you have the equivalent of this pocket book in your wallet? https://smile.amazon.com/Constitution-Reference-Amendments-Declaration-Independence/dp/0981559697
I'm skeptical.
Regardless, it's been well documented but on video and in legal terms that officers violate rules and often try to make arrests or declarations for things they have no authority to do so, through abuse of power or otherwise. The road they were on may have temporarily been cordoned off as government property as it is a government road and have the purview to do that so you can't be on it (though you could record from a far just like with Area 51 and other such places), but the side road he was on was not cordoned off or suddenly restricted, he was in his rights.
And an executive order can't supersede the constitution or the supreme court so that's not changing.
The seeds go further back than that. '47 National Security Agency was the beginning of the end. From Korea to now...
https://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190663995
> The article I posted refers to a researcher
I just checked, and that researcher, (actually plural) were Phillip Cook, and Kirsten Goss. This is the book referred to in your article.
In that book they refer to a better designed Assault Weapon Ban in Australia which was actually designed to be effective. They report that the AWB actually worked "to reduce gun homicide and eliminate rampage shootings".
If only the USA could have a similar AWB, we could also benefit.
Your citation amounts to shooting yourself in the foot. Want to try again?
You might enjoy this: https://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Myths-Court-Justices-Judges/dp/0313396876/
...and he has a book coming out this summer:
High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump.
https://www.amazon.com/High-Crimes-Misdemeanors-History-Impeachment/dp/1108481051/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=frank+bowman&qid=1557448669&s=gateway&sr=8-1