As a conservative and someone who looks at the Constitution as a static document that is the framework of our government (Mark would call me an originalist much in the same mold as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia) I raced to buy Men in Black to see how exactly the Supreme Court was overstepping it's bounds.

I was disappointed.

Maybe Mark Levin should take a writing class, because his book is nearly impossible to understand. I didn't study the law, but I did major in American History and have no problem reading flowery prose of great historical writers like Paine, Jefferson, or Franklin. If I could get through a Patrick O'Brian novel in 2 days, I thought I could get through anything.

This book takes the cake on being confusing. He makes no clear point on his thesis of judicial activism. He cites case law almost continually in blockquotes that run nearly three quarters of the page. He inserts them as if they alone are supposed to make his point. Anyone who is not a lawyer will find it hard to understand.

The opening chapters are the worst. His discussion on sodomy laws and courts intervening in matters of homosexual sex and marriage make no sense at all, and he fails to back up this opinion that states should be allowed to ban homosexual marriage.

He relies to heavily on citing long drawn out case laws and excerpts from judicial opinions instead of giving a clear and concise background and historical analysis of the Constitution itself and how he believes it sets a framework for American law.

How about a little Constitutional theory here?

I had to grab my own copy of the Constitution to refresh my memory because this book on Constitutional law doesn't even contain a copy of the Constitution!

I agree with the point of his book, but I found myself more confused at the end of it. I failed to completely grasp what exactly the role of the Judiciary is and how different rulings are fundamentally unconstitutional (speaking as a originalist again). It seems that his thesis is not so much that the courts are taking apart the Constitution, but are really just contradictory to previous opinions.

I think instead of citing case law after case law he should have discussed the Constitution itself, and how exactly the courts are overstepping their authority.

For more reading visit The Age of Reason