Rethinking Constitutional Law

"Provides the reader with a succinct and valuable survey of academic debates over the proper function of judicial review."—Perspectives on Politics

"A brief, yet helpful, addition to the now burgeoning literature on constitutional interpretation and is useful to students and scholars exploring the interpretation debate. It clearly and concisely lays out the various positions in the debate and points out the blind spots that can develop when partisanship drives one’s interpretation of the Constitution."—American Historical Review

"Maltz ably explodes scholarly myths about originalism and nonoriginalism that pervade the literature and exposes the flaws and difficulties inherent in each approach."—Review of Politics

"A stimulating challenge for all scholars of the Constitution."—Choice

"A lovely piece of work. Maltz addresses the issues with care and a clarity that is often lacking, and if people take his arguments to heart, debate over constitutional matters will be considerably improved."—H. Jefferson Powell, author of The Moral Tradition of American Constitutionalism

"Earl Maltz has injected a needed note of candor and common sense to the important debate on the role of judicial review in our public decision making. With objectivity and discernment, he has usefully debunked more than a little of the conventional wisdom of modern constitutional law scholarship."—Richard S. Kay, William J. Brennan Professor of Law, University of Connecticut

"The best available concise discussion of current constitutional controversies for anyone who would understand the wonders performed by courts in the name of the Constitution. Clear, sensible, and hard headed, it is both fully understandable by the educated layman and challenging to scholarly proponents of judicial activism."—Lino A. Graglia, author of Disaster by Decree: The Supreme Court Decisions on Race and the Schools