Men in Black is a book about excessive government power. It isn't concerned so much with legislative or executive power. Rather, this is a book about the growing power and influence of the Supreme Court; a court that author Mark Levin feels has overstepped its boundaries and taken upon itself to write the law in its own terms, often against the will of the people.

Levin speaks with authority on the issue of Supreme Court responsibility and the division of power among the three branches of the U.S. government. He is a Constitutional lawyer so he is certainly qualified to write a book such as this. However, this book doesn't necessarily present the strongest case against Supreme Court authority and abuse of power and many of its arguments are weak and sometimes contradictory. One of the arguments the author makes throughout the book, for example, is that a law that has been voted into place by the people should almost always stand; without interference from the Supreme Court or any other court trying to overturn it. But what this type of argument fails to point out is that, since the United States was founded as a Republic form of government, the rights of all people- majority, minority, and otherwise- must be respected and upheld. Rights are not up for a vote, but based on Levin's reasoning, he seems to think it's okay to take away certain rights if the ballot results say so.

Levin also argues against other things that many American's cherish, like the right to privacy. True, there is no explicit right to privacy granted in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it isn't an implied right, intended by the nation's founders. Surveys show that the majority of Americans feel that privacy is a right and should be Constitutionally protected. Levin feels it is not a right and that the Supreme Court should not treat it as such. It's interesting how the book so Levin so quickly changes his position on democracy and the importance of upholding the will of the people when they vote something into law. If a vote of the people confirms the right to privacy, one would think that someone like Levin would agree that it should be made into law. But based on his other convictions in this book, he would likely be against it, in direct contradiction of some of his other stands on the issues and the Supreme Court's authority to decide them.

In spite of Men In Black's faulty reasoning, there are some parts worth reading. The best chapter (by far) is chapter 10, "Silencing Political Debate". Here, the book accurately points out the very unconstitutional and un- American McCain- Feingold act of 2002 and how it silences free speech by making it a crime to talk about politicians in the days leading up to an election. How this ever became law and survived a review by the Supreme Court, I will never know. Levin is one- hundred percent correct in his criticism of this act and I share his disgust. Besides this chapter, there are some other good points made regarding certain individual laws (many are mentioned in the book) from over the years and how their fate was decided by the Supreme Court and they also make for good reading.

Overall, however, Men in Black isn't quite the incredible work of constitutional writing that some of its endorsers claim. Mark Levin seems upset at the Supreme Court more for the trend toward more liberal thinking than for its supposed violations of the U.S. Constitution. If the Supreme Court was violating the Constitution in favor of a position that he and his fellow conservatives approve, then I doubt he would say anything about it. He also seems to believe that the will of the people is sufficient to trample on rights. It all adds up to a less than average book that fails to convince me of its initial premise: That the U.S. Supreme Court has excessive power and wields too much influence. It's a nice effort, but it doesn't quite convince.
Men in Black is a book about excessive government power. It isn't concerned so much with legislative or executive power. Rather, this is a book about the growing power and influence of the Supreme Court; a court that author Mark Levin feels has overstepped its boundaries and taken upon itself to write the law in its own terms, often against the will of the people. Levin speaks with authority on the issue of Supreme Court responsibility and the division of power among the three branches of the U. S. government. He is a Constitutional lawyer so he is certainly qualified to write a book such as this. However, this book doesn't necessarily present the strongest case against Supreme Court authority and abuse of power and many of its arguments are weak and sometimes contradictory. One of the arguments the author makes throughout the book, for example, is that a law that has been voted into place by the people should almost always stand; without interference from the Supreme Court or any other court trying to overturn it. But what this type of argument fails to point out is that, since the United States was founded as a Republic form of government, the rights of all people- majority, minority, and otherwise- must be respected and upheld. Rights are not up for a vote, but based on Levin's reasoning, he seems to think it's okay to take away certain rights if the ballot results say so. Levin also argues against other things that many American's cherish, like the right to privacy. True, there is no explicit right to privacy granted in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it isn't an implied right, intended by the nation's founders. Surveys show that the majority of Americans feel that privacy is a right and should be Constitutionally protected. Levin feels it is not a right and that the Supreme Court should not treat it as such. It's interesting how the book so Levin so quickly changes his position on democracy and the importance of upholding the will of the people when they vote something into law. If a vote of the people confirms the right to privacy, one would think that someone like Levin would agree that it should be made into law. But based on his other convictions in this book, he would likely be against it, in direct contradiction of some of his other stands on the issues and the Supreme Court's authority to decide them. In spite of Men In Black's faulty reasoning, there are some parts worth reading. The best chapter (by far) is chapter 10, "Silencing Political Debate". Here, the book accurately points out the very unconstitutional and un- American McCain- Feingold act of 2002 and how it silences free speech by making it a crime to talk about politicians in the days leading up to an election. How this ever became law and survived a review by the Supreme Court, I will never know. Levin is one- hundred percent correct in his criticism of this act and I share his disgust. Besides this chapter, there are some other good points made regarding certain individual laws (many are mentioned in the book) from over the years and how their fate was decided by the Supreme Court and they also make for good reading. Overall, however, Men in Black isn't quite the incredible work of constitutional writing that some of its endorsers claim. Mark Levin seems upset at the Supreme Court more for the trend toward more liberal thinking than for its supposed violations of the U. S. Constitution. If the Supreme Court was violating the Constitution in favor of a position that he and his fellow conservatives approve, then I doubt he would say anything about it. He also seems to believe that the will of the people is sufficient to trample on rights. It all adds up to a less than average book that fails to convince me of its initial premise: That the U. S. Supreme Court has excessive power and wields too much influence. It's a nice effort, but it doesn't quite convince.