Status
Available
Genres
Publication
The New Press (2022), 240 pages
Description
"According to commentator and lawyer Elie Mystal, Republicans are wrong when they tell you the First Amendment allows religious fundamentalists to discriminate against gay people who like cake. They're wrong when they tell you the Second Amendment protects the right to own a private arsenal. They're wrong when they say the death penalty isn't cruel or unusual punishment, and they're wrong when they tell you we have no legal remedies for the scourge of police violence against people of color. In fact, Mystal argues, Republicans are wrong about the law almost all of the time, and now, instead of talking about this on cable news, Mystal explains why in his first book"--
User reviews
LibraryThing member pomo58
Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution by Elie Mystal is a wonderful stroll through the abuses the right wing (primarily) has heaped onto the already questionably founded Constitution.
Yes, there are expletives here. If you prefer to pretend to be offended by that while
This book uses the words of the Constitution, the history of the arguments and compromises that went into its writing and later amendments, as well as case law to illustrate how the Constitution falls well short of even its most high-sounding claims. This is not so much a dismantling of the document but a critique that shows how every time we have had the opportunity to tweak it in the direction of more justice and equity our courts have chosen to maintain the white supremacist foundations.
This is written in as conversational a tone as a book can be written that cites case law and quotes legal documents. And yes, again, Mystal doesn't hesitate to use expletives when they fit, and they certainly fit in the instances he uses them. While they certainly make the book more entertaining they also illustrate just how frustrating it must be to be able to point out the abuse and misuse of Constitutional ideas yet be dismissed.
Does every legal argument he makes stand unquestioningly as "the" interpretation? No, I don't think so. But those that might need some tweaking are still closer to both what would and should be Constitutional as well as what is most definitely more ethical than what has consistently been written into case law by judges intent on maintaining the status quo. When talking with friends I will likely use a lot of Mystal's language. When arguing with the knuckle-draggers on the right, I will leave out the expletives since that just offers them an excuse to sidestep the actual issues and I will try to find simple one or two syllable words so they can understand. Though that probably won't matter since their racism trumps ethics and morality as well as the Constitution.
Highly recommended for those wanting to know about how our founding document is abused consistently in service to white supremacy.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
Yes, there are expletives here. If you prefer to pretend to be offended by that while
Show More
supporting Trump, well, you lie about everything anyway so you won't like this book. If you're going to accuse a book of being nothing but ad hominem attacks you might want to learn what that is first, then read the book rather than repeat the same criticism you post about every book you don't like yet don't read. Okay, enough with the weak-willed cowardly "reviews" I saw on a popular seller site that for some reason won't let me even try to post my review, go figure, Jeff is a pretty disgusting guy too.This book uses the words of the Constitution, the history of the arguments and compromises that went into its writing and later amendments, as well as case law to illustrate how the Constitution falls well short of even its most high-sounding claims. This is not so much a dismantling of the document but a critique that shows how every time we have had the opportunity to tweak it in the direction of more justice and equity our courts have chosen to maintain the white supremacist foundations.
This is written in as conversational a tone as a book can be written that cites case law and quotes legal documents. And yes, again, Mystal doesn't hesitate to use expletives when they fit, and they certainly fit in the instances he uses them. While they certainly make the book more entertaining they also illustrate just how frustrating it must be to be able to point out the abuse and misuse of Constitutional ideas yet be dismissed.
Does every legal argument he makes stand unquestioningly as "the" interpretation? No, I don't think so. But those that might need some tweaking are still closer to both what would and should be Constitutional as well as what is most definitely more ethical than what has consistently been written into case law by judges intent on maintaining the status quo. When talking with friends I will likely use a lot of Mystal's language. When arguing with the knuckle-draggers on the right, I will leave out the expletives since that just offers them an excuse to sidestep the actual issues and I will try to find simple one or two syllable words so they can understand. Though that probably won't matter since their racism trumps ethics and morality as well as the Constitution.
Highly recommended for those wanting to know about how our founding document is abused consistently in service to white supremacy.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Perednia
Erudite explanation of why the Constitution is rigged against what many think it was designed to do, and suggestions on how to move forward. Also hilarious in Elie's distinct voice.
LibraryThing member Michael_Lilly
I liked this book even though I did not agree with everything in it. In the main I thing the author gets it right. But I wish he had given some recognition to the pioneers of Critical Race Theory, e.g. Derrick Bell who originated much of the same ideas on how racism is embedded in the structure of
Show More
our government. It's difficult for me to believe that the author is unaware of Bell's earlier work. At the least he should have mentioned it. For what it's worth I am a retired lawyer and I am white. Show Less
LibraryThing member Narshkite
I have been an Elie Mystal fangirl since he started writing for Above the Law back in 2008 or 2009 -- it was during the recession and I was an attorney recruiter watching the last vestiges of respect for non-monetizable excellence in private legal practice crumble. When I started practicing law in
Allow me to Retort is an amendment by amendment takedown of the Constitution, both as written and as interpreted, and a frontal attack on the "intent of the framers" crowd. As Mystal points out the document was drafted by slaveholding misogynists who intended keep down everyone not a landholding straight man of European descent. If you interpret the document based on the intent of the framers, women and people of color remain powerless, because that was the framers' intent. Mystal's legal and Constitutional knowledge is prodigious, and so he is able to show how the courts have consistently applied the law not in the right way, but in the way that most effectively keeps power in the hands of white men, and he provides solutions for how to patch the problems until we can just get rid of the Constitution. This was smart and challenging and a real pleasure both to argue with and to incorporate into my own thinking. I disagree with a number of Elie's points, and unlike him I love the Constitution and many of the amendments. The Constitution is an elegant document, and one written to be able to applied as the country modernized. If the framers had wanted specific rules on how things would be done forever and ever we would have a code based system as do most countries. The advantage of a Constitution is that it is adaptable and so these racist asshole strict constructionist are actually defying the framer's intent every time they choose not to interpret the guideline's in accord with the needs of the country as it is, rather than as it was (that is my opinion, not Elie Mystal's btw.) My point is that we disagree on elements of Constitutional interpretation, on the worth of the foundational document, and on many points he makes about what he believes would be best for America (his court-packing argument for instance, while moving, also fails to consider the downsides of a bloated court and is, IMO, wrong.) I don't read though to get the perspectives of people whom I agree with. I read to get the perspectives of people smarter, better informed, and more articulate than I. I got that here. I feel better informed, more equipped to argue for certain types of change, and also I came out of this shifting my opinions on a number of things. Go in knowing that this has a point of view, that it is written to persuade. It is not even-handed in the least, but it is also not rant -- it is a factually-supported position piece in a time where our doom will come, ironically, from the fact that facts are missing from most political discussion.
One note, I started this in audio and quickly changed to Kindle. Elie is a shouter. I did not like being shouted at by Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, I do not watch CNN or MNBC in part because I don't like all the shouters, and I don't like being shouted at by Elie Mystal. I greatly preferred the print, but YMMV.
Show More
1989 it was not unusual for partners to say things like "law is not just a business, it is a calling." in 2008 people stopped saying that. At the request of several client firms I started doing outplacement work for laid off lawyers (there had never been lawyer layoffs before) and every day I was an agent structuring and perpetuating the stealth layoff. It was a difficult time for me (and for the people fired, obviously) and Elie Mystal stepped up with the keenest of minds, the finest of educations, a sense of humor sharper than a Ginsu knife, and an honest sense of decency in an indecent world. Every day Elie kept me sane. (The way he dealt with racist ATL commenters alone was grounds for reverence.) Many years later when I moved back to New York I was at a professional event hosted by Breaking Media, and he was there and when I met him I was so excited I almost started crying. (In later encounters I did much better, and I have always hoped he did not remember that first meeting.) A couple years after we first met Elie left to be a legal commentator for The Nation. I stopped running into him at events and I followed his work at the Nation only sporadically. Though he was no longer a regular part of my intake, I followed him more than most pundits and continued to think him one of the smartest legal journalists working. So I went into this book with high expectations, and Elie did not disappoint.Allow me to Retort is an amendment by amendment takedown of the Constitution, both as written and as interpreted, and a frontal attack on the "intent of the framers" crowd. As Mystal points out the document was drafted by slaveholding misogynists who intended keep down everyone not a landholding straight man of European descent. If you interpret the document based on the intent of the framers, women and people of color remain powerless, because that was the framers' intent. Mystal's legal and Constitutional knowledge is prodigious, and so he is able to show how the courts have consistently applied the law not in the right way, but in the way that most effectively keeps power in the hands of white men, and he provides solutions for how to patch the problems until we can just get rid of the Constitution. This was smart and challenging and a real pleasure both to argue with and to incorporate into my own thinking. I disagree with a number of Elie's points, and unlike him I love the Constitution and many of the amendments. The Constitution is an elegant document, and one written to be able to applied as the country modernized. If the framers had wanted specific rules on how things would be done forever and ever we would have a code based system as do most countries. The advantage of a Constitution is that it is adaptable and so these racist asshole strict constructionist are actually defying the framer's intent every time they choose not to interpret the guideline's in accord with the needs of the country as it is, rather than as it was (that is my opinion, not Elie Mystal's btw.) My point is that we disagree on elements of Constitutional interpretation, on the worth of the foundational document, and on many points he makes about what he believes would be best for America (his court-packing argument for instance, while moving, also fails to consider the downsides of a bloated court and is, IMO, wrong.) I don't read though to get the perspectives of people whom I agree with. I read to get the perspectives of people smarter, better informed, and more articulate than I. I got that here. I feel better informed, more equipped to argue for certain types of change, and also I came out of this shifting my opinions on a number of things. Go in knowing that this has a point of view, that it is written to persuade. It is not even-handed in the least, but it is also not rant -- it is a factually-supported position piece in a time where our doom will come, ironically, from the fact that facts are missing from most political discussion.
One note, I started this in audio and quickly changed to Kindle. Elie is a shouter. I did not like being shouted at by Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, I do not watch CNN or MNBC in part because I don't like all the shouters, and I don't like being shouted at by Elie Mystal. I greatly preferred the print, but YMMV.
Show Less
Awards
American Bar Association Silver Gavel Award (Finalist — 2023)
Language
Original language
English