politics

In this well researched, well-written book, Krull describes the history of the Bill of Rights and remarks on its significance, historically and for our future. She begins by giving props to James Madison, the "100 pound giant" responsible for creating the Bill of Rights and goes on to relay the explanation behind each amendment, and weaving in recent issues to show how relevant the 462 words of the Bill of Rights still are today.
Krull is a strong youth advocate. Many of the court cases she mentions revolve around kids: censorship of school newspapers, illegal locker searches, prayers at school functions, and banned books. Krull points out that the words are open to interpretation, and explains how some amendments were interpreted differently in the past to show the true staying power of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Krull devotes a separate chapter to the other 17 amendments, with a date and brief explanations for each. She includes a quick explanation of the ratification process, and speculates on what sorts of proposed amendments the future might bring. The final chapter acknowledges problems with the Bill of Rights.
Divito's illustrations are whimsical, and the lettering for the amendments that head each chapter is elegant and dignified. Bullets, quotes, and drawings break up the text. See-also type entries on influential people, precedent setting court cases, and other appear in different fonts and separated from the narrative with bars. These sections are always related to the subject, and surprisingly don't interrupt the flow of the writing.
Krull has a knack for finding little known gems of information and relating them with enthusiasm. Her writing style is very engaging. This is a great book to browse or read in one sitting, and the thorough index can be used to look up just one fact. U.S. history teachers will no doubt find it useful. The list of further reading is contemporary and extensive. Websites are mentioned throughout the book and not compiled in a single list. Every library should own this book that brings history alive and makes the daily impact of the Bill of Rights real.

Actually, we have her "lives of the Presidents" book, too, and I'd give a review of it about the same title!

This is a fairly readable book, appropriate for interested fifth to seventh graders (or younger, if they like to read, or maybe older if they need a simple introduction)

It's a great topic and Krull uses a nice approach, with lots of illustrative cases that kids might find engaging -- Some are famous Supreme Court decisions, others are recent news stories, many involve minors.

The writing style is ok, nothing great "One day in 1925, John Scopes, a biology teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, decided to do something daring..." Lots of term-paper-like usage of "many", "some", etc.: "Today, many view school prayer as a way to promote values and ethical behavior in children. Others insist that the teaching of moral values does not require the removal of the wall between church and state."

I find it a little plodding in spots, but my nine year old son didn't seem to notice. And it does provide a good starting point for our own discussions.

Lots of very sensitive political issues are touched on -- and the author definitely has a liberal bias. It's most noticable in the second amendment discussion, but you don't have to look very hard to find it elsewhere. Sometimes I have no idea where she's coming from. In the eighth amendment discussion, just before some predictable stuff on capital punishment, she says "Recently, however, many have come to feel that depriving liberty to any but the most violent criminals may be inappropriate punishment." I think the point about prison conditions is worth making, but I'm not sure I've ever heard it expressed this way before. The restriction to only the *most* violent criminals is a particularly startling touch.

And, I wonder who she means by:
"There are some who see the interests of government as more important than the rights of the people. They can be actively hostile to the Bill of Rights and would just as soon undermine it." Somehow, I don't think she's talking about the Environmental Protection Agency's lack of concern for the takings clause of the fifth amendment. Incidentally, her discussion of the fifth amendment skips that clause completely.

And of course, she has little good to say about the tenth amendment, though she mentions that Bob Dole made a point of quoting it in his presidential campaign.

Despite my last few paragraphs, I actually do like this book, mostly. I *definitely* approve of the concept -- a book about real government issues in a style accessible to kids. And it has led to some interesting conversations with my son, which I find very rewarding (he seems to like them, too).

I was less then impressed by Ms Krull's work. Taking the 2nd amendment as an example, her information was less then accurate.

PP81 where Ms. Krull claims that "by 1999 about 16 American children a day were being killed by guns.." is even higher than an often quoted figure from HCI. The HCI figure has been shown wrong numerious times.

pp84 Ms Krull states without James Madison to explain himself, people have been arguing about these words since written. When James Madison's good friend Tench Coxe wrote to explain all the amendments in the Bill of Rights he indicated "..The people are confirmed in the next article (2nd amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms. Madison told Coxe that "he was indebted to the co-operation of your pen" for helping to explain the amendments to the public. Madison's support of like explainations clearly indicates that the 2nd is an individual right.

pp84 "Lawyers and legal prfessors usually have taken the narrower view: the right to own guns is a collective one..". Really?? why then do 29 out of 32 legal reviews of the 2nd amendment since 1980 indicate the 2nd is an individual right? Why has even famed socialist legal scholar Lawrence Tribes changed his mind and says its an individual right?

I could go on and on. Ms Kull's indication that gun control could prevent crime has been disproven so many times its sad. Even her pointing to England as a place of control providing low crime has been proven wrong since this book was written in 1999. Since then England has experienced a dramatic increase in crime. British Government studies point to the banning of firearm ownership in 1999 as the cause of the problem.

Ms. Kull has high praise for the Brady Bill. However, in the 8/2/00 issue of the AMA anti-gun researchers where forced to admit that there was no data to support the Brady Bill as having reduced crime.

Two issues are clear to anyone who honestly reviews the 2nd amendment: (1) It is an American right to privately own and carry arms (2) Gun control mearly makes it easier for criminals to commit crimes and turns "We the People" into "We the sheep/victum".