Daniel A. Farber

Professor Farber systematically analyzes constitutional issues of Lincoln's presidency and the Civil War. His primary focus is on whether secession was constitutional, whether Lincoln's decision to go to war without Congressional approval was constitutional and whether the suspension of habeas corpus was constitutional. Two of those questions have import for Americans today.

The author is a law professor, but the work is not intended only for the legal community. Farber's knowledge of Lincoln and his times shines as he frames the constitutional questions and analysis with the history of the time. Further, he considers the development of constitutional theory as he compares Lincoln's actions to those of subsequent presidents in times of crisis.

Anyone interested in Lincoln, the Civil War or history of the constitution will appreciate this book.… (más)

I read Geoffrey Stone’s Perilous Times a couple of years ago. Daniel Farber’s Lincoln’s Consitution has a similar focus, but covers only the Civil War rather than the entirety of the history of civil liberties during troubled times. In addition to examining whether the Lincoln administration’s curtailment of civil liberties during the Civil War was constitutional, Farber also looks at the question of secession and use of military force against the south. Farber’s conclusion is that most of Lincoln’s actions were constitutional.

(Full review at my blog)… (más)

This is an important book. It's a mere 200 pages, plus another 27 pages of footnotes and glossary and an appendix of closing comments. That last bit is worth the price of the entire book. If you don't count Life's interruptions, it took me a month to read [Retained by the People] because I had to ponder (interpret, if you will) the text. I suppose if I had any college courses in Constitutional Law, it would have been easier; maybe not.

The perspective of the writing is from the Left of Political Center. There is somewhat harsh criticism of the Conservative judges serving on the Supreme Court. He dished it out to the more Liberal judges as well, but not to the same degree.

The 9th Amendment states (in my own words), "By the way, we've mentioned a few Rights of the People earlier, but we want to state for the record that there are lots of other unspecified rights that belong to the People. The Government must understand that what ~it~ may do is defined in the Constitution only, and anything else is not the Government's to muck around with". And now you see why I'm not in politics -- I lack eloquence.

This book ought to be required reading for all kids in high school taking U.S. History 101.… (más)