From the Publisher

A non-lawyer's guide to the worst Supreme Court decisions of the modern era

The Dirty Dozen takes on twelve Supreme Court cases that changed American history—and yet are not well known to most Americans.

Starting in the New Deal era, the Court has allowed breathtaking expansions of government power that significantly reduced individual rights and abandoned limited federal government as envisioned by the founders.

For example: • Helvering v. Davis (1937) allowed the government to take money from some and give it to others, without any meaningful constraints
• Wickard v. Filburn (1942) let Congress use the interstate commerce clause to regulate even the most trivial activities—neither interstate nor commerce
• Kelo v. City of New London (2005) declared that the government can seize private property and transfer it to another private owner

Levy and Mellor untangle complex Court opinions to explain how The Dirty Dozen harmed ordinary Americans. They argue for a Supreme Court that will enforce what the Constitution actually says about civil liberties, property rights, racial preferences, gun ownership, and many other controversial issues.

Publishers Weekly

Cato Institute senior fellow Levy and lawyer Mellor, in this excellent examination of twelve far-reaching Supreme Court cases and their consequences, force readers to question the direction in which the judiciary has led our country over the past century-and possibly their own attitudes toward the federal government. The authors deftly navigate the complicated proceedings without slipping into lawyer-speak, while unapologetically leaning on their libertarian sentiments to color their commentary and analysis. Though the writers defend well their claim that the dozen cases under discussion-with a number of "dishonorable mentions" and an appendix each for Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore-have expanded the federal government and eroded civil liberties, one can't help but feel a creeping sense of arrogance when Levy and Mellor assert repeatedly that they know how the Constitution's authors would view the document were they alive today. Still, the authors' canny investigation into the Supreme Court should call into doubt some of the staid political viewpoints readers may have taken too long for granted.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Becky Kennedy - Library Journal

Levy (senior fellow, Cato Inst.) and Mellor (president & general counsel, Inst. for Justice), both affiliated with libertarian think tanks, have chosen 12 Supreme Court cases that, in their opinion, severely limited individual rights through the expansion of government. As their introduction makes clear, they are conservatives who favor limited government intervention, and the cases they have chosen reflect their position. The chapters are organized by the constitutional issues raised by each case, such as promoting the general welfare, regulating interstate commerce, and property rights. The authors' critiques of these issues are sure to provoke debate. However, they do examine each case on the basis of legal reasoning and in each chapter lay out the flaws in the Court's thinking that make each decision in their view a "bad" one. These explanations are the strong points of the book. Although some readers will disagree with their viewpoint, Levy and Mellor have done a good job of explaining their thinking. Public libraries may be interested in this book for legal collections, but academic libraries can find other, more scholarly titles.

Kirkus Reviews

Two conservative lawyers register their outrage at the Supreme Court's "back door" expansion of government and erosion of civil rights. Cato Institute scholar Levy and Institute for Justice president (and former Reagan counsel) Mellor unabashedly assert that their interpretation of the Constitution is "committed to the values of individual liberty, private property, and free markets." The dozen cases they examine, in their view, betrayed the principles of the Founding Fathers and vastly enlarged federal power over the course of the 20th century, specifically from the New Deal onward. The book is organized thematically, with four cases grouped under "Expanding Government" and eight under "Eroding Freedom." For each, the authors outline the facts, then offer their explanation of where the courts went wrong and what the implications are. Helvering v. Davis (1937) upheld the legality of the Social Security Act by embracing the "general welfare" clause in the Constitution; the authors call this an authorization to "rob Peter in order to pay Paul." They view Wickard v. Filburn (1942) as a pernicious expansion of the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause. Such cases as Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. (2001), they contend, have fostered the concentration of power in the hands of unelected administrative agencies. The authors deplore the expansive view of eminent domain taken in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), seeing its roots in earlier decisions supporting urban renewal. They scornfully critique the court's upholding of affirmative action in higher education in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), and they also blast the justices for affirming the legality of interningJapanese-Americans during World War II in Korematsu v. United States (1944), a clear violation of civil rights. In every instance, they advocate a narrow view of constitutional restraints, as opposed to a "living Constitution" flexible to changing modern needs. Grating at times, but these sternly libertarian arguments keep the constitutional dialogue lively and accessible.

Product Details

• ISBN: 1595230505
  
• ISBN-13: 9781595230508
• Format: Hardcover, 320pp
• Publisher: Sentinel
• Pub. Date: May 2008
• Sales Rank: 13,199

• Table of Contents

Table of Contents