This book is a compendium of 59 3-page essays.

My guess is that the editors set a size limit for the individual authors—thereby forcing them to squeeze a great deal of information (history, analysis, and prognostication) into a form that will allow for a 5 minute reading of each. For me, I found that I needed several re-readings before I could absorb and understand what was said…and what was not said.

The majority of the discussions end with a statement of the form: “When the justices do address the core conflict between [A] and [B], they must decide what the [C] Amendment’s guarantee of [D] requires and what results will ensue when states abrogate one liberty in favor of another.”

Several contributors have noted that “New issues will arise as technology improves and questions…emerge”.

There are many questions concerning politics and the 3 cores of our government that are answered—and for that alone this book is well worth reading. But the unasked, and unanswered questions point out that, whatever changes we do, or don’t, make to the Constitution, we have now reached the phase in this nation’s political journey when partisanship rules and if “we” can’t learn to ‘play together’ and negotiate our laws in good faith we will be in for a rough ride.

“These are the times that try men’s souls.” But what gives me hope is that, since the large majority of the Senators and Representatives of both houses of Congress are over 60, if not 70, years of age we should expect (or hope for) a change after the ‘die off’ and we let some of our ‘children’ join the game.

Like the Forefathers, we must cultivate a faith in the majority of this country electing new members of Congress that truly want to work for the greater good, instead of their own aggrandizement.

I rated this book 4.5 points because of the arbitrary 3 page restriction that forced most, if not all, of the contributors to condense their knowledge, and opinions, into statements of carefully constructed ambiguity. But, in these globally precarious times, this might be the least of our worries. ( )

No, you won't understand the U.S. constitution in 5 minutes, or even read it in 5 minutes. No, but in the 59 articles, each of which can be read in 5 minutes, you can learn how legal minds read and draw conclusions about the framers' intentions and modern interpretations of the intentions in light of social and technical changes over the years. You may not agree with the author of some or all of the contributors to the book, but given a better understanding of how these arguments are made will give you a model on which to base your arguments. I shared this with my nephew who decided this would be a good addition to his library. You can always learn something along the way, just keep an open mind. ( )

The U.S. Constitution in 5 Minutes is a great introduction to the foundational document of the American democratic system. The 59 scholarly yet accessible short essays whet the appetite for a deeper dive into the various topics, and the suggestions for further reading, which accompany each essay, point the reader to excellent additional material. This is an essential handbook for this fraught era in American political history when Constitutional crises seem to perpetually loom. ( )

This is a great book to learn about what the Constitution means and how the Supreme Court (primarily) has interpreted it over the years. I think what I found most impressive was its unbiased perspective. The book covers many historically controversial topics (such as gay marriage, the 2nd amendment, affirmative action, etc.) but does so in a surprisingly—and refreshingly—even-handed manner.

There are nearly 60 essays broken down into several main sections including Origins, Representative Democracy, Individual Liberties, Equality and Civil Rights, and more. Each essay offers a very brief bio of its author, and references within and without the book. ( )

The editors write that The Constitution is central to American politics; it is not. That is not to say that many pay lip service to the words but it is not followed faithfully. The country has grown exponentially but the accretions to Constitutional direction has grown along with it the and to the detriment of the Founder's intentions. We even had no less than a Supreme Court Justice who attacked the Constitution, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And, as the editors note that if constitutions are written today the language of our document is off-putting and seen as out-of-date. I would suggest rather that our statement has been superseded by the power of the Uniparty and the power grab by an ever increasing Federal government and despotic bureaucracy.

The editors propose to examine important aspects of The Constitution in a series of short essays: Origins, Congress and the States, Conflicts Between the Branches, Representative Democracy, Individual Liberties, Equality and Civil Rights, The Criminal Justice Process, and Looking Outward and Forward.

The U.S. Constitution was written more than 230 years ago for a new country on the periphery of the world. Two centuries later, it governs the most powerful nation on earth, and its meaning is constantly debated. One promising way to review the volume is to consider the best commentary on The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, along with the Anti-Federalist Papers:
Federalist,
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
Anti-Federalist,
https://www.librarything.com/work/37413/summary/34501570

The U.S. Constitution in Five Minutes presents fifty-nine essays on subjects central to the meaning and application of the U.S. Constitution. Written by scholars, these essays cover origins; institutions, processes, and structural features; civil rights and liberties; and modes of interpretation and address common questions and misunderstandings about the Constitution, such as:

• Can the president start a war?

This is one of the highlights since the War Powers Act has been increasingly inflamed by both Democrats and Republicans. America has been involved in Korea as a police action, Vietnam as a complete loss of life, the incessant Middle Eastern interventions, and most tragically in Ukraine. Eisenhower warned the Americans about the military-industrial complex and Babylon, D.C. has nonetheless turned a blind eye to the dangers of wasteful conflicts, and harming the domestic economy. The Uniparty enthusiastically embraces eternal war to feed the consultants and defense industry. Biden has left our troops as sitting ducks in the tradition of Obama who droned civilians with wild abandon. None of these conflicts have endeared this country to others in the world and turned many global citizens against us.

The Electoral College has been seen as undemocratic in that a candidate can lose the popular vote but become president by winning the Electoral College. The franchise has increasingly exrended but it has downplayed the importance of geographical and state level concerns. With the 17th Amendment, the states were further subverted. I don't think eliminating the Electoral College is the solution so much as increasing the level of informed citizens. The Founders wanted leaders to emerge and guide with the instrument of the Electoral College. For example, the Federal government is running roughshod over Texas and the border states through the dominating power of the national government. The Electoral College is a check on the unrestricted national power apparatus.

The Founders realized that factions might develop into partisan political parties."Federalist no. 65 argued that the 'greatest danger' to the impeachment process would be instances where political actors decided on impeachment and guilt based on faction strength (i.l.e., political party preferences) rather than the merit of the accusations" (p. 96). The Constitution requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate to convict an impeached president, which means that at least seventeen Republican senators would have had to join the factional Democrats to remove Trump. This was a Constitutionally impossible goal to achieve.

Only three other presidents were impeached and only once; the intention of the Founders was to have a rarely invoked process in the case of egregious danger to the Republic.The only person to have been impeached twice, and in one term, was President Donald Trump. The factional Democrats imitated the British system that the Constitution abhorred. One of the key differences between a president and a prime minister is that a president can only be impeached for specific reasons, such as treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate to convict. A prime minister can be removed by a vote of no confidence, which can be triggered by any reason, such as policy disagreements, scandals, or poor performance, and requires a simple majority of the legislature to pass.

The administrative state, especially since the Progressive Era, has seriously impacted the Constitution's imprecise language about Federal bureaucracies. Two more recent decisions have opened the door for a reexamination about bureaucratic despotism. Gundy v. United States (2019) and West Virginia v. EPA (2022) perhaps are correctives "to guard against an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power" (p. 104).

• Does the Constitution protect hate speech? I would rather not see the US go down the road that other countries have in defining and eliminating speech. I'd prefer that we all just get thicker skin; speech that leads directly to actions of violence are the few limitations that I prefer.

• Does the Second Amendment give everyone the right to have a gun? District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) was a move in the right direction as is Macdonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Both affirm the Foundational understanding of "commonly used weapons for lawful purposes, notably for self-defense" (132).

• Does the Constitution protect noncitizens?
Yes, and now prioritized over American citizens.

• How can we tell what the Constitution means?
As an originalist it is the simplest way to interpret historical documents.

Palko v. Connecticut (1937) defined fundamental liberty as "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (p. 167). Such rights are "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental" (pp. 167-168). The battleground will be over same-sex marriage and the free exercise of religion. The Court has taken a dimmer view of the ordered, traditions, and conscience of religion regarding a Christian baker and in social services (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021).

The short work is ideal for examining the question each section asks with its brief review and a few references. The questions address what most students of the document are interested in briefly understanding.