Wow, that was long! Really, really detailed book about SO much, especially court cases in the US. Really great info in here - sometimes it can be too much! Like so much information! Especially since it’s a lot of history, and I’m more about the analysis. And the analysis is great when Stone does it, so I kinda wish there were more.

Also, it is kinda disappointing that there’s not any attention paid to trans people and not a lot of information regarding POC. Like, yeah, you could argue that information would be in a separate book… but I dunno, would be nice to be in here.

Sex and the Constitution should be part of the required reading list for college US History majors. The importance of the content within cannot be overstated. Stone takes a big picture approach, looking at the history of American attitudes and laws regarding sex and religious beliefs around sex - obscenity, same-sex partnerships, reproductive rights, etc - from as far back as ancient Roman and Greek norms to early Christianity to the Framers right up through 2016. There is so much to unpack in Stone's work. If ever there was a vitally important time for Americans to become versed in our Constitution's history, even if only in the matters of sex and religion, that time is NOW.

One of the most important books I’ve ever read.

it’s definitely a long one but it was incredibly well done and i really enjoyed it, am literally going to write the author about it

This book was fascinating. I kept calling friends and relatives to talk about different things discussed from Ancient Greek abortion rights to the more familiar cases like Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges. I always find it so interesting (and a little frustrating) when once contemporary books age and new parts of history have occurred. I would love to have heard his take on Kavanaugh and Barrett’s nominations and the controversies surrounding their ascent into the Supreme Court.

Excellent book on the Constitution, Court Cases and the First Amendment. It was an easy read and the author does a great job explaining without bogging down with too many ideas. Recommend for anyone.

Eye opening book. A comprehensive history of how we arrived at our current social and political climate regarding religion, laws, sex, and, bodily autonomy.
From Thomas Jefferson's disappointment in our rapid regression to the multiple times Roe v. Wade came under fire. It showed me parts of history I did not know or was misinformed about.

I’m nearly caught up on all of the important law books I need to tell you about from this year. I’ve been saving this one because I love it so much, but now I’m in the summer. I’ve got my beach books, I’ve got my beer, and I’ve got my Bachelorette. I’m ready to tell you about constitutional law casebooks. It’s kind of like Jane Austen, where you have to give the ubiquitous hierarchy of favorites, so here it is:

1. Stone (this book)
2. Braveman
3.
4.
. . .

98.
99.
100. Sullivan, Gunther

Have I mentioned how lame the Sullivan/Gunther is? It’s really lame. The edits are the most mangled, choppy atrocities you’ve ever seen. They pulled out fingernails just because they didn’t like the nail polish. It’s the [b:City of Bones|256683|City of Bones (The Mortal Instruments, #1)|Cassandra Clare|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1293422496s/256683.jpg|2267189] of constitutional law.

This one, on the other hand, is like poetry. It’s beautiful. The edits are clean and powerful. I am glad I read the Braveman first because it has far fewer edits, so you have to work for the information you’re getting, but the Stone is like reading Hemingway on the Constitution. It’s lovely.

I read this one for the constitutional law class I was tutoring, and I loved every minute of it. Tutoring was fun, too, in the end. I don’t love teaching, but I love reading and debating constitutional law. The kids in my class are geniuses. About a third of them were political science majors in college, and they were all amazing. The guy I sat next to in the class looked like Marty McFly’s dad. Like, when you look at him, things turn black and white, and you transport into the 1950s. He wears a trench coat and a suit every day, and he carries a brief case, in which he has a tin where he keeps brownies that his mom made. And then he started bringing me coffee almost every class, so that was one reason it was awesome to be the tutor.

I’ve already told you tons about constitutional law, so I won’t go over it all again. Judicial review, separation of powers, federalism, commerce clause, the fourteenth amendment, etc. In this class, the professor, Dreamy McDreamerson, introduced § 5 of the fourteenth amendment before talking about due process, so that was confusing. Don’t do that.

And then there was the mistake about INS v. Chadha. That case is about the legislative veto. The legislative veto is where Congress passes a law that requires implementation by the executive branch, but then Congress gets to review the executive implementation. So, like, they said, in this case, that certain people have to be kicked out of the U.S. Then, the INS let this one guy stay. Then, the House of Representatives said, no, that’s not what we wanted, and decided to kick the guy out. Then, the Supreme Court said that the House of Representatives isn’t the boss of how the executive branch executes the law, and so the legislative veto is unconstitutional. But, Justice White pointed out that the decision is pretty wrong, and I agree. I won’t go into it now, but trust me. He’s not right about the whole thing, but he’s right.

Professor McDreamerson agreed with the Powell concurrence, though. That’s pretty legit. It’s a really well-reasoned concurrence. There’s this apocryphal story about it that I’ll tell you now, too. So, Justice Burger wrote the majority opinion (made me hungry every time we talked about it). And Justice Burger was totally pissed that Justice Powell didn’t sign on to the majority opinion and wrote his own concurrence instead. So, years later, Justice Powell was writing a pretty important opinion (I forget which one), and Justice Burger dissented from it. Justice Powell really wanted the whole court to agree, but he couldn’t get Justice Burger to sign on. After they issued the opinion, Justice Powell went to Justice Burger’s chambers and was talking to him. He asked if there was anything he could have done to persuade Justice Burger to sign on to the opinion.

Justice Burger said, “No, you were completely in the right. I agreed with you. I was just getting you back for the Chadha opinion.”

Or so they say.

Anyway, that’s not from the book. I just heard the story from an unnamed source this year and thought it was a good one. Oh, those silly Justices! I love ‘em. The lesson from all of this, though, is that if you read a constitutional law casebook on your own, in your spare time, read this one.

a fascinating and timely read, even (or especially?) for someone like me who is not a constitutional law aficionado. (enjoyed this so much that i might actually buy my own copy.)