An Argument Open to All
Reading "The Federalist" in the 21st Century
-
- $27.99
-
- $27.99
Publisher Description
In An Argument Open to All, renowned legal scholar Sanford Levinson takes a novel approach to what is perhaps America’s most famous political tract. Rather than concern himself with the authors as historical figures, or how The Federalist helps us understand the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, Levinson examines each essay for the political wisdom it can offer us today. In eighty-five short essays, each keyed to a different essay in The Federalist, he considers such questions as whether present generations can rethink their constitutional arrangements; how much effort we should exert to preserve America’s traditional culture; and whether The Federalist’s arguments even suggest the desirability of world government.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
Levinson, a University of Texas law professor, revisits The Federalist Papers in erudite but uninviting fashion. These 85 celebrated essays were written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison in support of ratifying the U.S. Constitution. Levinson puts their perspectives through a present-day lens, shifting from the founders' own concerns to current issues such as NATO and the Affordable Care Act. His goal is to demonstrate how 18th-century constitutional arguments speak to dilemmas in 21st-century governance. Thus, to discuss "Federalist No. 10," Levinson uses the modern terminology of an electoral base to help readers understand the 18th-century fear of factions. Reviewing federalism and state power, economic nationalism, and defects of confederation as well as military force, taxation, elections, and three-branch design, Levinson explains why each topic got the founders' attention, and why it deserves our own. He addresses their suspicion of genuine majority rule and focuses on the essays' "hard-headed realism." Ronald Reagan's "trust, but verify" dictum regarding the Soviet Union is cited as a recent example of this tone. Tackling the theme of tyrannical central power, Levinson examines private possession of guns and the idea of disarming the citizenry. Displaying some animus toward libertarians and impatience with interpretations based on original intent, he does not shy away from strong opinions. Levinson's scholarship and jurisprudence are indisputable, but this cleverly argued book's appeal is limited to legal circles.
