Scan barcode
cdbaker's review against another edition
3.0
I listened to this but it made almost no impression. I almost forgot that I had listened to it.
judyward's review against another edition
3.0
A fascinating look at the importance of the Marbury v. Madison decision by the Supreme Court in 1803. In the Marbury decision, John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice, carved out a position of power for the then rather feeble Supreme Court by claiming the power of judicial review for that body which helped to define the boundaries between the three branches of government. In setting the background for the decision, the authors give a general history of the early Supreme Court, the attempt by John Adams to pack the Judicial branch with the "midnight justices", and the political personalities that interacted during the early years of the Republic. Based primarily on secondary sources and contemporary newspaper articles and editorials, the authors are able to present a vivid account of a period in our history that is often called the Second American Revolution.
turophile's review against another edition
3.0
Every law student reads Marbury v. Madison in constitutional law class, but rarely do most classes (or students) go in depth into the history surrounding the case. The author is not exaggerating when he makes the case that this decision had a profound impact on the development of the political institutions of this country.
Mr. Sloan does a good job of providing color and drama to enliven what could be a dull topic. Even lawyers familiar with the opinion may learn quite a bit.
Unfortunately for Mr. Sloan, I compare every non-fiction book on political or legal history to Robert Caro's Master of the Senate making it hard to get five stars out of me in this genre. Providing interesting facts and details can make "dry history" come alive, but the details should be relevant to the story. Mr. Sloan kept dropping details about seemingly minor characters or even advertisements in newspapers that did not seem relevant. For example, paragraphs throughout the book are devoted to medical advertisements for tapeworm remedies and other ailments and cures of the times. What on earth do these have to do with the main story? And many characters he drops into the story do not reappear and do not appear to affect the outcome.
The main problem for me with these extraneous details is that it felt like the author was puffing the story to make it novel length. Many details could have been dropped and this story would have been a tight well-written lengthy article or novella. Alternatively, the story could have been expanded into a biography of Marshall.
Despite my complaints, I do recommend this book highly for anyone and everyone who raises the charge that something is "unconstitutional."
Mr. Sloan does a good job of providing color and drama to enliven what could be a dull topic. Even lawyers familiar with the opinion may learn quite a bit.
Unfortunately for Mr. Sloan, I compare every non-fiction book on political or legal history to Robert Caro's Master of the Senate making it hard to get five stars out of me in this genre. Providing interesting facts and details can make "dry history" come alive, but the details should be relevant to the story. Mr. Sloan kept dropping details about seemingly minor characters or even advertisements in newspapers that did not seem relevant. For example, paragraphs throughout the book are devoted to medical advertisements for tapeworm remedies and other ailments and cures of the times. What on earth do these have to do with the main story? And many characters he drops into the story do not reappear and do not appear to affect the outcome.
The main problem for me with these extraneous details is that it felt like the author was puffing the story to make it novel length. Many details could have been dropped and this story would have been a tight well-written lengthy article or novella. Alternatively, the story could have been expanded into a biography of Marshall.
Despite my complaints, I do recommend this book highly for anyone and everyone who raises the charge that something is "unconstitutional."
More...