(Part 2) Best general constitutional law books according to redditors
We found 908 Reddit comments discussing the best general constitutional law books. We ranked the 281 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.
37. The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet Classics)
3 mentions
I remember reading a book that belonged to my friend, called [Blood in the Face] (https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Face-Nations-Skinheads-Culture/dp/156025100X), which was a study of various Neo-Nazi and other white supremacist organizations throughout the US. (Say what you will about left-leaning social sciences majors, but god damn can they get some interesting little personal libraries going). Among the many photographs in the book was a detailed map of one white supremacist's new vision of America, with various ethnic groups given their own little swaths of the land. The Jews got NYC and Long Island, Cubans got South Florida, etc. Vermont would become a new nation called "Francia" to hold all the French-Canadians, who, uh, weren't white enough to be with all the other white people I guess.
MacKinnon recently asked a similar question:
More than half a century after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defined what a human being is and is entitled to, Catharine MacKinnon asks: Are women human yet? If women were regarded as human, would they be sold into sexual slavery worldwide; veiled, silenced, and imprisoned in homes; bred, and worked as menials for little or no pay; stoned for sex outside marriage or burned within it; mutilated genitally, impoverished economically, and mired in illiteracy--all as a matter of course and without effective recourse?
(Conclusion: MacKinnon says 'Yes', patriarchy says 'No'. MacKinnon and patriarchy in irreconcilable difference of views, round #4,761. :P)
Maybe not what you asked for, but this is basically a must-read (IMO) for anyone interested in constitutional law. You can also reference the typical supplements that law students use. They are much easier than a casebook.
Nutshell
Crunchtime
See if your law school offers intro to law courses for undergrads. Mine did and it helped a great deal at piquing my interest in law.
Beyond that, I'd read some books about SCOTUS (G. Toobin's "The Nine" is a good, easy read).
If you want to dig into actual con law without reading yourself into a coma, try Con Law: Principles and Policies by Erwin Chemorinsky (http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Introduction/dp/073555787X)
It was, and is, the Con Law bible for law students. It's heavy on legal concepts but its written well enough that its readable by anyone. I have my copy sitting right next to me on my desk right now. I can't tell you how good this book is for constitutional law 101 type information.
The piece explains the objective facts that 30% of of people who identify as "transgender" also report "fair to poor" health. 65% also report severe mental illness. The article then blames society without accepting any other explanation.
They attribute this to mockery being "hard." Not that sex change regret is getting worse and they simply won't acknowledge it. Nowhere is it confirmed that "gender affirmative surgery" improves quality of life. The book When Harry Became Sally is a series of accounts taken from an older doctor at Johns Hopkins. He resisted GRS as conforming to body dysmorphia until the Obama administration said his staff had to perform GRS or face Justice Department action. He argues in the book that reassignment does not improve quality of life, but the opposite. And to hang it all on mockery is intellectually dishonest.
I'm so tired of this shit with Charlize Therone and these isolationist aristocrat pieces of shit trying to make the whole population as crazy and fucked up as they are. Please just go back to whatever crazy inverted asshole dimension you came from. This Baphumet shit is just so old and annoying now.
Did a thesis on the rise of racist skinhead culture in the US and it’s origin and evolution (into a racist movement) in the UK, back in college (in the early 90s). While most of the research came from magazines, newspapers and videos, some books that were helpful included (off the top of my head):
Blood In The Face
Skinhead by Nick Knight
Subculture and CutNMix by Dick Hebdige
Also there was an incredible article on Bob Heick leader of the American Front and arguably I’d say one of the first guys to popularize the Nazi skinhead movement here in the US, published in Rolling Stone back in the late 80s. If you can find it I’d recommend tracking it down.
Also you may want to check out Subcultures, Pop Music and Politics: Skinheads and "Nazi Rock" in England and Germany
Good luck with your research
While I agree with your sentiment that, for their day, the Founding Fathers of the United States were remarkable people they also had their problems. Nearly every problem that citizens of the United States are facing today were predicted in some fashion by other founding fathers. If you really want to understand the debate, at the time, you have to read the following two books.
If you kept an open mind and read those books you will probably find yourself much more suspicious of government than you might otherwise expect. The first book of this second list was written in the 19^th century and makes very clear the problems with the US Constitution. The last two are modern extensions of thought to Spooners' writings.
This kind of thing is not new at all. You should read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Mass-Migration-Displacement-Coercion/dp/0801448719
Coercive Engineered Migration - someone wrote a book about it! We ARE being invaded and unless we close the borders we'll be fucked!
https://www.amazon.ca/Weapons-Mass-Migration-Displacement-Coercion/dp/0801448719
Sure thing! Here is a shortlist of some of my favourite books (or in the case of Hope In The Dark, highly recommended books from trusted sources).
This Is An Uprising - Mark & Paul Engler
I think this is probably the best entry point. It starts off by challenging the popular notion that social uprisings are spontaneous and unpredictable but the results of years of work. Then they explore what that kind of work looks like, using some historic examples to distil a few of the key concepts. It’s a really accessible book and if you want to believe that revolutionary, transformational change is possible in our times this book is for you.
This Changes Everything - Naomi Klein
I think one of the most insightful books on the politics of climate change ever written. If you wonder why climate change got so politicised and why the right works so hard to deny the science, this book will explain what’s at stake for the rich and powerful and why we simply can not treat climate change as any other issue, but something that cuts to the core of political conflict. It is extremely well researched and detailed but very well written so easy enough to read.
Out Of The Wreckage - George Monbiot
This is probably the most contemporary book in this list. Published just last year and really rooted in the politics of this moment. It attempts to offer a bit of a road map for solving the political, ecological and economic crises we find ourselves in. It’s at its strongest when talking about the narratives and stories we need to tell about ourselves, it gets a bit weaker as it attempts to dive deep into solving democracy. But it still offers a lot of food for thought and big doses of hope.
Rules For Revolutionaries - Becky Bond & Zack Exley
I just love this book. It was written by two of the lead organisers on the Bernie Sanders campaign about how they built a huge voter contact machine that broke all the rules of political organising. While This Is An Uprising covers some of the bigger concepts, this gets into the details of how organising at scale works in practice. Definitely pitched at people who do this sort of work in some capacity, I think it’s one of those behind the curtain books that most people will find interesting.
Hegemony How To - Jonathan Matthew Smucker
This one goes a bit more into the details of organising radical groups and campaigns. An amazing book that lays out a loving critique of what some of the left has been getting wrong, and builds on what it can do better. I love it. But not a book I’d really recommend for people who aren’t involved in that world yet because it really does go into details that probably aren’t useful unless you are a real geek about this stuff.
Hope In The Dark - Rebecca Solnit
For a lot of people I know, this book is a bit of a sacred text. And I have to be honest, that I haven’t read it yet. But almost everyone I know in the US re-read it after Trump was elected. The main message of this book is that social change is unpredictable and the future is uncertain. From that uncertainty we can, and must draw hope. The future is not decided and we have the capacity to influence it in ways we don’t always understand. While we may experience some campaigns and protests as failures, the history of social change is far from linear. We will experience twists and turns on the path to victory. We need hope to keep pushing, and we need to keep pushing because each failure brings us closer to success. Just not always in the way we expect. If you don’t have time for the whole book, or just want a taste. This is a great article she wrote a few years ago exploring the same basic themes.
Emergent Strategy - adrienne maree brown
This one is more inwardly focused. Connecting personal experience with political struggle. It teaches us to let go of the status quo and embrace change. Fear of the unknown sometimes holds back our ability to imagine a better future or let go of control.
not really a book, just a catch-all to refer to writing in opposition to the ratification of the constitution. and there's a LOT of them. but if one is interested, i think the edition edited by ralph ketchum is convenient for the novice and has the added bonus of excerpts from madison's notes from the constitutional convention.
Hm tbh any good history book that covers the early years of the US should go into it. And this is the Wikipedia page on the 3/5 compromise but does have a good list of references and sources at the bottom.
Also this
Restoring the Lost Constitution by Randy Barnett is a really good one if you want to make an argument against the way the Constitution has recently been handled, but still try to maintain some of the legitimacy of the document (which is to say, NOT full ancap).
One of his central points is that government can only gain legitimacy from the consent of the governed (ALL of the governed) so its a good springing off point.
"Making Our Democracy Work" by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is a pretty good laymens description of constitutional law.
Ich lass mal diesen Literaturtipp hier....
I would have to read it to make a proper comment. But that conclusion seems...not right. Incidentally, Kelly Greenhill (of Tufts) wrote a very well-regarded book on how countries use the threat of forced migration/displacement as a tool of coercion, so not a million miles from your idea: https://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Mass-Migration-Displacement-Coercion-ebook/dp/B0057P69P8
The late Justice Scalia wrote a great book about this very topic! Legislative intent is (or was) only relevant for interpreting the words of the actual law as it is eventually written. Now the various District Courts want to expand that to show intent that was never translated into the text of the law.
I will admit to being a bit of a strict constructionist in my viewpoint, but this is something that is actually a fairly new approach to constitutional interpretation and is currently a pretty hot topic among lawyers! As the old saying goes, "Easy cases make bad law."
Here is another book to add to your reading list:
http://www.amazon.com/Friendly-Fascism-Face-Power-America/dp/0896081494
Many of Gross' predictions were stunningly accurate and I feel we have arrived at many.
Firstly, if you actually have any interest in convincing me of your views you should start by treating me like another human being from the same town.. instead of starting with "fuck it, I'm downvoting you." Onto your arguments:
>Was the Civil Rights Act an infringement on personal liberty?
The Civil Rights Act covered a lot and was largely a great document. This is a very different discussion. Its important to remember some key facts. HB2 only "discriminates" against those who identify as a gender that differs from their actual sex. If you live in North Carolina and committed to changing your sex and had an operation, HB2 has zero affect on you at public events. You may change your birth certificate in North Carolina as a result of a sex change. Other states are even more loose on the issue and allow birth certificate sex changes based on doctors notes. Now talking specifically about personal liberty and businesses: hopefully we can agree that an individual deciding in their mind with no operation that they were born in the wrong body and demand they have separate bathrooms is very different than black people being allowed to vote.
That said, I do disagree with TITLE 2 in the civil rights act though I agree that the section may have made a positive impact on interracial relations. This wasn't the only route to this accomplishment though. I recommend Thomas Sowell's (whos an African American economist) book [Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688062695?ie=UTF8&tag=thomacom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0688062695) For further reading on the topic. Heres an excerpt:
>> Sowell: “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s — when there was little or no civil rights policy — than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.
>>“The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act).
back to your comments:
>That's such an entitled argument - that you should be free to act however you want with your business. Can you deny African-Americans? Women? People in wheelchairs?
Yes. its entitled but its no more entitled than allowing you to refuse Jehovas' witnesses from entering into your home if you disagree with their ideas. Though I would argue that those who deny women or people of color is horrible for business and the free market will weed those businesses out. That can be accomplished through free speech. Not government regulation. We should all be entitled to decide who we want in our homes or in our place of business. It is YOUR home and it is YOUR business.
>We have communal rules to protect those with little power. Move your business to a totalitarian state if you don't like it.
The constitution are the communal rules that protect all individuals and it doesn't discriminate based on race or gender.
>fuck it, I'm downvoting you.
>You're throwing out this tired "blame Charlotte" argument for HB2.
>If you look at the 30 largest U.S. cities, only 8 of them lacked discrimination protection for LGBTQ individuals. Charlotte's attempts at democratic governance would have taken that number to 7. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/04/houston-isnt-alone-these-are-the-largest-u-s-cities-that-still-allow-lgbt-discrimination/
This argument is entirely irrelevant.
>And if you don't like abortions, don't get one. 3% of planned parenthood money goes to abortion. The rest goes to health efforts like STD prevention and contraceptive services. The money that "Obama" is taking from you is actually reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies way more than any theoretical abortions. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money
I never even mentioned planned parenthood but I will just copy paste what I responded to another user with
Some reasons you shouldnt like planned parent hood (below)
Planned Parenthood has become a billion-dollar organization on the backs of taxpayers. They earned $128 million in revenue with over $1.4 billion in net assets last year. In the same year, federal and state governments gave them over $528 million to fund their lucrative programs.
Planned Parenthood performs one in three abortions in the U.S. They reported performing 327,653 abortions last year. Former employees have even made allegations that there are mandatory “abortion quotas” each affiliate must meet.
Planned Parenthood emphasizes abortions instead of preventative care. They made only 1,880 adoption referrals and just 18,684 prenatal services last year. Even cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood have decreased 50 percent since 2004.
Planned Parenthood has been accused of financial fraud with taxpayer dollars. In 2013, an affiliate payed a settlement of over $4 million to Texas for Medicaid fraud. Similar investigations revealed over $8 million in possible fraud across nine states.
Planned Parenthood fights laws that protect women and children. They have opposed legislation that would protect infants born alive after failed abortions and tried to derail an anti-human trafficking bill because the legislation included a longstanding and widely-supported policy against taxpayer funding of abortion.
But ultimately if you are pro abortion, planned parenthood may not horrible to you, so we can just agree to disagree there.
This book was #1 on Amazon a few days ago.
Again: that book reached #1 on Amazon's bestsellers list at one point, and that point was recently.
There is a market for people who want to believe this shit. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
It an older book, but Ellen Aldernan & Kathleen Kennedy’s “In Our Defense” uses real Supreme Court cases to explore each of the amendments to the constitution. They even manage to find a Third Amendment case, which ain’t easy.
Dean Erwin is a fucking constitutional savant, by the way. Dude is literally encyclopedic (and wrote the damn book on it).
If you really want to be sure, just get the 4th edition used. It surely will be enough. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/073555787X/ref=sr_1_2_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486744787&sr=1-2&keywords=chemerinsky+constitutional+law
One of the chapters of Constitutional Cliffhangers by Brian Kalt covers this scenario and discusses what might lead a president to try self-pardon and what the likely outcomes would be. I recommend it. Tl;dr Kalt suggests that a self-pardon is legal.
There's a lot of info in there that would bring his eligibility for president into question ... have you read any of the books about him? Here are a couple that I read years ago ...
Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President
The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality
OBAMA'S CHILDHOOD RECORDS VINDICATE CORSI BOOK
Photo shows candidate registered 'as an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim'
There's a massive "rabbit hole" associated with Obama ...you've probably been indoctrinated to believe it's all whacky conspiracy theories. I've researched him extensively, and I assure you it isn't. There's as much "going on" with him as there is with Clinton and the Foundation. ;-)
A beginner may want to start with "Decision at Philadelphia," which is one of the more readably written accounts of the convention, and doesn't sacrifice too much for it. If you want to go more in-depth, find something which contains or at least excerpts James Madison's own notes-- for example, "The Constitutional Convention: A Narrative History from the Notes of James Madison," which I believe takes the notes themselves and presents them in a somewhat more readable format.
How about this?
> U.S. House, Ohio District 14 General Election, 2016
> Party, Candidate, Vote %, Votes
> Republican David Joyce 62.7% 214,618
> Democratic Michael Wager 37.3% 127,547
> Total Votes 342,165
Not the worst place to start but far from the best, too. I know some places in Germany which changed by a bigger difference within 2-3 elections. However this often needs quite a few non-voting persons changing their minds and to get your name out. Brand recognition is important if you want to change something on such population levels.
I know someone who lead an election campaign for a mayor in one of Germanies biggest cities, his initial polling was ~45%:55% in favor of his opponent. He still won, but this took 12 years of political activity to prepare. So be aware that all of that will take some time.
I always like Thinking about the Fundamentals - Helvey and will look into Rules for Revolutionaries - How Organizing can change everything - which is about Bernie's campaign structure. If you were happy with the way thinks were talked about in the military Helvey is a good read. He was Army Colonel or something like that.
OK. I found a good one.
Would a book count?
https://www.amazon.com/Wheres-Birth-Certificate-Eligible-President/dp/1936488299
Here's an article on same topic
https://www.wnd.com/2009/08/106135/
Something more recent
https://mobile.wnd.com/2016/10/youtube-bans-clintons-black-son/
He also pushed Seth Rich conspiracy....
Recommended reading: Friendly Fascism by Bertram Gross.
The Five Types of Legal Argument is a good primer on what types of arguments are used in the courts that generate case law. Chemerinsky's Constitutional Law is an excellent resource for constitutional law, which is some of the more interesting stuff. The Nine is an easy read and a good introduction to the personalities and major decisions of the Rehnquist court and early Roberts court. Dressler's Understanding Criminal Law is another good one; it explains the general architecture of criminal law and its development. Those might be available at libraries near you. If there's a law library in your area, you can always grab a legal encyclopedia (like American Jurisprudence 2d. or Corpus Juris Secondum) and a Black's Law Dictionary and flip around until you find something interesting. And as others have mentioned, BarBri is a good resource.
Law 101 by Jay Feinman is pretty good.
Making Our Democracy Work by Justice Breyer is a pretty good overview of constitutional law.
see also: Are Women Human? by Catharine MacKinnon (2006)
and Are Women People? by Alice Duer Miller (1915)
> Mal ehrlich, was soll man den ganzen "Verschwörung!"-Schreiern denn jetzt noch erwieder? Außer "Ihr hattet recht" meine ich?
Das kommt darauf an, welche Verschwörung du meinst. Migration als Waffe Das Buch wurde von der International Studies Association (ISA) als bestes Buch des Jahres 2011 ausgezeichnet.
Das ist natürlich nur eine historische Untersuchung. Aber genau das, was im Moment mit Europa/Deutschland passiert. Und die europäischen Politiker stehen daneben und sehen zu.
You can read all about it in James Madison's meticulous notes.
There is also a fair amount about that particular arguement in this book
>But you're "allowing" me to sleep with her, right? No law = allowing.
Not at all. It's not my choice to allow or not. There is no law stating that you cannot sleep with another person's girlfriend. You are allowed, permitted, have the right to propose such to her, and she is free to permit, deny or tell you to fuck right off. She is legally not permitted to slap you however, that's technically assault or battery depending on where you live, just as you are not allowed to force yourself on her. But in the original context of sleeping with my gf, she's not my property, she's a person, so I am not sure where I come in other than that I walk in on the two of you. At which point, I may or may not commit a double homicide and go to jail for it.
>Yet I never agreed to them. How can a law exist that applies to me, yet I never agreed to it? Honestly, I'm asking for your viewpoint here, because it really seems like a leap of logic to draw this conclusion.
I read a book on this, because it does get to the heart of the problem and essentially what you already mentioned. (I cannot remember the author or name, but I think it might be John Rawls? Bit dense reading though.) If I remember it discusses consent of the governed and specifically discusses the Constitution and "how can it be binding on those that didn't vote for it." Technically you can say, you didn't, but then others before you have and they are the ones that founded the country and area you live. If you disagree with it, you are free to leave. Then we have issues of your right to stay and live by your own rules, issues of lawlessness etc.
It is, as you said, to every person's benefit to follow basic rules/principles of reciprocity and norms else there would be chaos. If I remember correctly he discusses the consent of the governed and implied consent. It might actually be a different book specifically on the constitution actually by another author... one I believe a coworker never returned to me THIS I think that is it. Good read at least for a different view on things.
Why do I personally believe I should follow the Constitution and most laws, because I don't think they're unjust. I agree with the principles of democracy and that if I want to change something society as a whole has established a reasonable process to do that.
Generally, I don't think you'll find an objectively 100% accurate support for following laws, rules or the Constitution. It is a creation of man and not a law of nature. Subjective aspects are inherent and you can always argue "what if I choose to ignore it, or have different beliefs." Similar argument that is brought up ad nauseam, "what if we encounter a culture that believes murder is legal?" Ya, what if? Personally, I prefer Objectivisms view that there is an ultimate good with which to based judgments on, the existence and protection of life. That still has holes, but it allows me to comfortably say that such a society would be evil as it destroys life. (lets not go down this road though, what life is, what is a greater good all that... that's not really on topic).
>Don't people in the government kill people, rape occasionally and dogs are killed all the time (not sure about eaten). The reddit front page is filled with these stories almost every week at least. So I can only conclude that we are in "a world without laws".
You can conclude that we are in an imperfect world. A world where people disregard the laws. Whether under the belief they do not apply to them or merely because they don't care. The fact that some don't follow the rules doesn't mean there are no rules.
> It is the judge's job to interpret the law and enforce it. It is the lawmaker's job to write the law and implement it.
Actually, you'll find that "interpreting the law" often puts judges in a role people view as "activist". When a judge is considering the law, they have to look at the text of the law and consider precedent. If there is no precedent, they also have to fall back on anything which might illustrate the lawmakers original intent. Failing that, they also fall back on (yes, it's true), English Common Law as it's ultimately the basis of US law.
The upshot of this is that precedent and intent fall back on the public's evolving community standards. Brown v. Board of Education, for example, overturned Plessy v. Ferguson in part because "separate but equal" did not fit the 1950s evolving notion of equality. However, because the Supreme Court decided, unanimously, to alter how law should be enacted, they perfectly fit the "judicial activism" claim that may politicians harp about today. Frankly, I believe politicians are well aware of this hypocrisy, but it gets voters motivated, so they keep their mouths shut.
If you want more background information about this, I strongly recommend the book In Our Defence: The Bill of Rights in Action by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy. It's a fascinating historical guide of the creation and interpretation of the US Bill of Rights, and has chapters covering each of the first 10 amendments.
Obama Hater, Birther, Clinton Hater, conspiracy theorist - Jerome Corsi
>Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to... http://www.amazon.com/dp/1936488299/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_heWoxb1EAWV7E via @Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President2011
by Jerome Corsi
Well, if you actually do have an open mind, you should look into these resources:
You write:
> Asians are better scholars, and blacks are better athletes than whites, and yet you blithely say that "nothing in the physical makeup" of these people makes them more or less anything. I guess only the good things count.
No and no. It is you who are asserting false things without evidence on your side. You need to read more, and you need to experience more.
For me, the coin really dropped when I was tutoring a Chinese girl in Calculus when I was finally in a big college in a major city. Every Asian I had known until then in my provincial upbringing had been smart and engaging. I fully believed the stereotype of scholarly asians. Even there in college, my girlfriend at the time was Chinese and wicked smart. So I had "evidence" for my belief, but it was being contradicted by her stubborn inability to understand the math in front of her. It finally just hit me right then that this lady I was tutoring was kind of stupid as far as math went. Nothing wrong with that, but that was the moment that it hit me that the positive stereotype I had had was blinding me to the reality of the situation, and what she could literally understand.
I hope you'll consider what I've written, and read one or more of the books I've suggested. They've all been important to me.
>Because unfortunately, conservative values build nations and liberal values tear them down
Give us one example, please.
> The job of the government is recorded in the Constitution.
Yes, but as Scalia wrote in his book, it's a matter of interpretation. It's a very informative book. I recommend you read it.
> Both sides have an agenda and that agenda is to inflate the well being of their supporters so that those supporters will continue to put them in power.
I agree. Who are the supporters and how do we take them down? Trump has made them all members of his cabinet.
Sounds a lot like this book, which first introduced me to the concept of a panopticon.
achillbreeze: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link
Sounds a lot like this book, which first introduced me to the concept of a panopticon.
This supplement?
Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Treatise) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1454895748/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_oH-hDbSGZ7J9T
The dickhead has a book.
https://www.amazon.com/When-Harry-Became-Sally-Transgender/product-reviews/1594039615/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&sortBy=recent#R2JMBCQAZN656
People like the book.
People praise the book.
Im a little scared for America. Just a little.
See Jack Balkin's book Living Originalism for the best account of my general view on Constitutional interpretation and construction.
So-the-fuck-what if Caroline Kennedy has little "political experience," whatever the fuck that means.
She's read the Constitution, heck, she's written a book on the Bill of Rights.
We need less political lemmings in there and more free-thinkers. If we pass up Caroline Kennedy for someone with "political experience", that is, one whose ideals are tainted by decades of maneuvering, the United States will be the sorrier for it.
You should check out her book Rules for Revolutionaries. The whole Beto campaign was organized around the rules it lays out.
http://www.amazon.com/Friendly-Fascism-Face-Power-America/dp/0896081494
Are you talking about this?
They assert why it happens, they have yet to support the why.
That the individual just wasn't as well liked as the other interviewees.
You've cited zero objective evidence other then to point to other who make the same assertion without any support.
Incorrect. The discrepancy only exists when you compare all women with all men. Again when comparing equally prepared individuals, in the same job of opposite gender the discrepancy not only vanishes but in many cases women end up ahead.
http://smile.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Rhetoric-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688062695?sa-no-redirect=1
Karsh
This speech is based off his book https://www.amazon.ca/Making-Our-Democracy-Work-Judges/dp/0307390837
I heard a thing on the radio today from a constitutional law professor who said that the president's power to pardon is actually pretty broad, the person being pardoned doesn't have to admit guilt or be convicted, and no explanation has to be given for the pardon.
Also as amazingly stupid as it seems, the president can in fact pardon himself. There could be political repercussions and he could be impeached but he could probably just pardon himself and resign, or resign and let his successor pardon him.
This doesn't put him outside of the purview of state laws though.
https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Cliffhangers-Legal-Presidents-Enemies/dp/0300123515/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500669490&sr=8-1
Constitutional Cliffhangars discusses it. Federal level, nearly impossible before impeachment. State level, possible but politically unlikely.
Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:
Link: Jack Balkin
|Country|Link|
|:-----------|:------------|
|UK|amazon.co.uk|
|Spain|amazon.es|
|France|amazon.fr|
|Germany|amazon.de|
|Japan|amazon.co.jp|
|Canada|amazon.ca|
|Italy|amazon.it|
|China|amazon.cn|
This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting).
Its actually only an exerpt from this book:
Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs) 1st Edition, Kindle Edition
Rather than focus on the players, focus on the methods being implemented.
There is documentation from various churches throughout the region, where soros funded the migration through the churches, including maps, phones, money, cloths, and promises of help getting setup in the various countries receiving the migration.
There is also various documentation that the US government, Germany and France were fully aware it was going to take place a year before the mass migration started.
And from what I gathered, my opinion seems accurate.
Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?
And
Basic Economics
The title comes from this book.
From the blurb "More than half a century after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defined what a human being is and is entitled to, Catharine MacKinnon asks: Are women human yet? If women were regarded as human, would they be sold into sexual slavery worldwide; veiled, silenced, and imprisoned in homes; bred, and worked as menials for little or no pay; stoned for sex outside marriage or burned within it; mutilated genitally, impoverished economically, and mired in illiteracy--all as a matter of course and without effective recourse? "
I found this. It's a bestseller, so I will give it a read. https://www.amazon.com/When-Harry-Became-Sally-Transgender/dp/1594039615
https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism
https://www.amazon.com/Friendly-Fascism-Face-Power-America/dp/0896081494
Ohoh ..salt ! And hurt butts ! So, mental midgets.. Sorry, I mean, fascists , not happy when exposed to opposing opinions? lol Can't blame you, that's how fascists behave.
Keep'em raining, they're medals to me !