05/07/2005: Men In Black: How the Dupreme Court is Destroying America by Mark R. Leven
This book is available from Amazon
The Supreme Court Endorses Terrorists' Rights, Flag Burning, and Importing Foreign Law. Is that in the Constitution?
Mark Levin is one of America's preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers. He is the president of Landmark Legal Foundation, host of a number-one rated talk radio program on WABC in New Your, and a contributing editor for National Review Online. Levin has authored numerous articles that have been widely published and has appeared on scores of television and radio programs. Levin also served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Regan's Cabinet. He was chief of staff to the attorney general of the United States, deputy solicitor at the Department of the Interior, deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Education, and associate director of Presidential Personnel. In 2001, the American Conservative Union honored Levin with the prestigious Ronald Regan Award. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Temple University in 1977 at the age of nineteen, the sane year he was elected to theCheltenham Township School Board in Pennsylvania. In 1980 he graduated from Temple University School of Law.
From Amazon.com:
Conservative talk radio host, lawyer, and frequent National Review contributor Mark R. Levin comes out firing against the United States Supreme Court in Men in Black, accusing the institution of corrupting the ideals of America's founding fathers. The court, in Levin's estimation, pursues an ideology-based activist agenda that oversteps its authority within the government. Levin examines several decisions in the court's history to illustrate his point, beginning with the landmark Marbury v. Madison case, wherein the court granted itself the power to declare acts of the other branches of government unconstitutional. He devotes later chapters to other key cases culminating in modern issues such as same-sex marriage and the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Like effective attorneys do, Levin packs in copious research material and delivers his points with tremendous vigor, excoriating the justices for instances where he feels strict const! itutional constructivism gave way to biased interpretation. But Levin's definition of "activism" seems inconsistent. In the case of McCain-Feingold, the court declined to rule on a bill already passed by congress and signed by the president, but Levin, who thinks the bill violates the First Amendment, still accuses them of activism even when they were actually passive. To his talk-radio listeners, Levin's hard-charging style and dire warnings of the court's direction will strike a resonant tone of alarm, though the hyperbole may be a bit off-putting to the uninitiated. As an attack on the vagaries of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and on some current justices, Men in Black scores points and will likely lead sympathetic juries to conviction. --John Moe