A noted children's nonfiction author and one of the nation's foremost constitutional scholars team up to create an essential book on the United States Constitution for everyone grappling with today's most urgent political issues. Many of the political issues we struggle with today have their roots in one place—the U.S. Constitution. Fault Lines in the Constitution takes readers back to the creation of this historic document and reveals how many of the problems that trouble us today—such as voting rights, the Electoral College, gerrymandering—were first introduced. Cynthia and Sanford Levinson explain the unexpected ramifications of decisions make in 1787 and explore possible solutions found in the constitutions of states and other countries. Each chapter begins with a story―all but one of them true―that connects directly back to a section of the document that forms the basis of our society and government. Informative sidebars and graphics run throughout along with a timeline and bibliography.

The latest volume in our World Citizen Comics graphic novel series, Fault Lines in the Constitution teaches readers how this founding document continues to shape modern American society. In 1787, after 116 days of heated debates and bitter arguments, the United States Constitution was created. This imperfect document set forth America’s guiding principles, but it would also introduce some of today's most contentious political issues—from gerrymandering, to the Electoral College, to presidential impeachment. With colorful art, compelling discourse, and true stories from America's past and present, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Graphic Novel sheds light on how today's political struggles have their origins in the decisions of our Founding Fathers. Children’s book author Cynthia Levinson, constitutional law scholar Sanford Levinson, and artist Ally Shwed deftly illustrate how contemporary problems arose from this founding document—and then they offer possible solutions.

The question whether and how boundaries might individuate and thereby be constitutive features of any imaginable legal order has yet to be addressed in a systematic and comprehensive manner by legal and political theory. This book seeks to address this important omission, providing an original contribution to the debate about law in a global setting. Against the widely endorsed assumption that we are now moving towards law without boundaries, it argues that every imaginable legal order, global or otherwise, is bounded in space, time, membership, and content. The book is built up around three main insights. Firstly, that legal orders can best be understood as a form of joint action in which authorities mediate and uphold who ought to do what, where, and when with a view to realising the normative point of acting together. Secondly, that behaviour can call into question the boundaries that determine who ought to do what, where and when: a-legality. Thirdly, that this a-legality reveals boundaries as marking a limit and, to a lesser or greater extent, a fault line of the respective legal order. Legal boundaries reveal ways of ordering the who, what, where, and when of behaviour which have been excluded, yet which remain within the range of practical possibilities accessible to the collective: limits. However legal boundaries also intimate an order which exceeds the range of possibilities accessible to that collective - the fault line of the respective legal order. Careful analysis of a wide range of legal orders, including nomadism, Roman law, classical international law, ius gentium, multinationals, cyberlaw, lex mercatoria, the EU, global regimes of human rights, and space law validates this thesis. What sense, then, can we make of the normativity of the law, if there can be no inclusion without exclusion? Arguing that legal and political theories misunderstand how legal boundaries do their work of including and excluding, the book develops a normative theory of legal order which is alternative to both communitarianism and cosmopolitanism.

Elizabeth Mancke presents a comparative history arguing that differences in the political cultures of Canada and the United States have their origins in changes in the governance of the British Empire in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.

Societies in all countries are split by major divisions - or 'faultlines' - caused by differences in race, religion, ethnicity, wealth, class or power. Like geological faultlines, some are plainly evident, whereas others are more concealed and can erupt with little warning. Violence along faultlines within states, from Sudan to Iraq to the Congo, is the spark of much contemporary conflict. It has cost millions of lives in the past twenty years alone. In extreme cases, this violence threatens to tear states apart. Yet some countries such as Canada, South Africa and Northern Ireland, have largely succeeded in managing their faultlines. On the Faultline is based on a unique year-long project by some of the world's leading experts to examine the nature of conflict around these divisions. In a world facing acute environmental, migration and resource challenges that can only exacerbate differences, it is an essential guide to understanding a phenomenon that all countries must grapple with in the 21st century.

This book explores whether the legal and political institutions of Afghanistan were able to incorporate diverse ethnic groups into the political process. Ethnic accommodation has gained central stage in the literature on institutional design and democratic consolidation. However, some divided societies are more explored than others, and Afghanistan is one understudied country that is critically important for testing and improving our theories of institutional design in a democratizing, plural society. This work examines the Constitution of 2004 and those provisions of electoral laws and political party laws that together devised Afghan political institutions including those of the presidential system, unitary government, electoral systems as well as the party system. It argues that due to their incongruence in design and effects, the Afghan political institutions failed to fully accommodate ethnic groups in the political process. This book adopts a holistic approach, while also paying careful attention to the details of each of the individual pieces of political institutions designed by the Constitution of 2004. Taken together, this approach yields insights into the boundaries and interactions of institutional design and how their interactions hinder or advance ethnic accommodation in varying contexts. The book will be essential reading for academics, researchers and policy makers interested in constitutional law and politics.

A detailed and compelling examination of how the legal theory of originalism ignores and distorts the very constitutional history from which it derives interpretive authority Constitutional originalism stakes law to history. The theory's core tenet--that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning--has us decide questions of modern constitutional law by consulting the distant constitutional past. Yet originalist engagement with history is often deeply problematic. And now that a majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court champion originalism, the task of scrutinizing originalists' use and abuse of history has never been more urgent. In this comprehensive and novel critique of originalism, Jonathan Gienapp targets originalists' unspoken assumptions about the Constitution and its history. Originalists are committed to recovering the Constitution laid down at the American Founding, yet they often assume that the Constitution is fundamentally modern. Rather than recovering the original Constitution, they project their own understandings onto it, assuming that eighteenth-century constitutional thinking was no different than their own. They take for granted what it meant to write a constitution down, what law was, how it worked, and where it came from, and how a constitution's meaning was fixed. In the process, they erase the Constitution that eighteenth-century Americans in fact created. By understanding how originalism fails, we can better understand the Constitution that we have.

In this lively historical examination of American federalism, a leading scholar in the field refutes the widely accepted notion that the founding fathers carefully crafted a constitutional balance of power between the states and the federal government. Edward A. Purcell Jr. bases his argument on close analysis of the Constitution’s original structure and the ways that structure both induced and accommodated changes over the centuries. There was no clear agreement among the founding fathers regarding the "true" nature of American federalism, Purcell contends, nor was there a consensus on "correct" lines dividing state and national authority. Furthermore, even had there been some true "original" understanding, the elastic and dynamic nature of the constitutional structure would have made it impossible for subsequent generations to maintain any "original" or permanent balance. The author traces the evolution of federalism through the centuries, focusing particularly on shifting interpretations founded on political interests. He concludes with insights into current issues of federal power and a discussion of the grounds on which legitimate decisions about federal and state power should rest.