The struggle for the Bill of Rights should be a fascinating history. What ideas drove the men who argued for and against the Bill of Rights? The book claims that much of the disagreement was just about process--e.g., whether we should get a Constitution with a Bill of Rights or first a Constitution and then a Bill of Rights. Oh really? Process may have been an argument, but surely wasn't the foundation of disagreement. Puzzling facts get mentioned, but but never get explored--such as, why was New Jersey so quick to approve the Constitution without a Bill of Rights? The author doesn't pause to consider such questions. A great opportunity missed.
Report Inappropriate Content