An excellent and at times exciting account of the controversies surrounding the 1800 presidential election and Adams' subsequent judicial appointments. Ackerman's overall thesis that this incident represented a critical failure on the part of the Framers is not as strong, but the story is excellent and excellently researched.

A most excellent study of the circumstances surrounding the election of 1800 and its profound subsequent consequences on American government. The are many parallels between the 1800 election and that of 2000- and many of the same issues remain unsettled.

In-depth history for the election of 1800 and the Jefferson Presidency from the point of view of Constitutional law.

A well written history book, but suffers from Ackerman's somewhat myopic constitutional theory. He places too much emphasis on the accidental nature of the United State's development, assuming that the Founding Fathers could have structured a better founding document. He stretches this to the point of arguing that the country has more or less held itself together via good statesmanship and a whole lot of luck. - and sees on the horizon a constitutional crisis that may shake the nation irreparably. He may have a point there, but the story is broader and longer than this book makes it out to be.

A good history of the judicial and executive struggles within the early republic and how the concept of judicial review was tempered by other rulings relegating the court to the supporting the elected representatives of the government. The changing role of the presidency is also discussed.

"The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy by Bruce Ackerman (2007)"

As one delves deeper into portions of American history what we were taught in El-Hi and college intro courses is revealed as, to be gentle, not the whole truth. In this work Prof. Ackerman discusses the issue of electoral processes designed by the 'founding fathers'. In the first instance, until 1933 there was a long lame duck session during which damage could be done making the incoming President's job that much harder and hardening the out-going administrations policies against possible change. The election of 1800 saw the presidential election thrown into the House of Representatives because of flaws in the electoral college process. This was combined with the stacking of the judicial system by the Federalists during their lame duck session. While Marbury v. Madison is now considered the case that established judicial review, the author argues it should be combined with Stuart v. Laird and not necessarily viewed as the basis for judicial review. In fact, Chief Justice Marshall should have recused himself from the case of Marbury v. Madison because he was the one that caused Marbury's problem and thus had a vested interest in the case. I found the work enlightening and further substantiated the idea that original intent can not be established with any real certainty. Especially if one takes into consideration the contexts during which the various documents and cases were developed.

An interesting look at some of the unforeseen problems the authors of the US Constitution didn't account for.

Of all the many books I have read about the founders, this is my current favorite because of the way it tells stories -- including images of actual historical documents -- and analyzes what happened. If only there were more books like this one.

This book has so many great features
- includes the actions and writings of so many of the interesting founders: Adams, Jefferson, Burr, Hamilton Monroe, Marshall and Bayard
- delves into the psychology of the situation (the 1800 election and following)
- explains the reasoning behind the mysteries of why some did the things they did -- for example, why did Burr do nothing to advance his cause with House Federalists in the tied election?
- discusses in some depth the alternate historical paths that could have been taken
- has a good and believable thesis about how this was the moment when the understanding of the US government changed from legalistic to plebiscatory
- reveals meetings and writings, such as the post-election meeting between Jefferson and Adams and the provocative anonymous writings of Marshall that are just not discussed elsewhere

Even one of these things would cause me to give a book five stars, but here there are, count 'em, six!

This book is a trip. If even vaguely interested in constitutional law, you must read it. Twice.