Title: A classic study from 1919
Product review: This is a classic work by one of the most noted constitutional scholars of the early 20th century. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Amazon information to indicate that the book was actually published in 1919. (My first clue was the passage saying that something that happened in 1805 or thereabouts was "a hundred years" ago.) The book sounds amazingly modern and it's remarkable that much of the discussion about separation of powers and the history of the Constitution seems so contemporary. Of course, the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have radically changed the interpretation of the Constitution's stance on "state sovereignty," so the portions on Marshall's great later opinions on states and the Constitution do seem different from current understandings. Very interesting to read the views of a major scholar from nearly 100 years ago on the events of the early Republic.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
