SKU: 79348816307
y2k dress

y2k dress Vintage Y2K Denim Dress

Sale price$23.74 Regular price$26.38
Save 10%

Pay in installments of $6.59 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Sep 12 - Sep 17

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

y2k dress Vintage Y2K Denim DressThis vintage Y2K denim dress combines a structured strapless bodice, washed denim finish, oversized belt accents, and a pleated mini hem for a look that feels sharp, directional, and instantly styled. The fitted upper silhouette gives the piece a more sculpted shape, while the pleated skirt keeps the overall look playful and dynamic instead of overly rigid. It is the kind of dress that turns a simple outfit into a full fashion statement with very

This vintage Y2K denim dress combines a structured strapless bodice, washed denim finish, oversized belt accents, and a pleated mini hem for a look that feels sharp, directional, and instantly styled. The fitted upper silhouette gives the piece a more sculpted shape, while the pleated skirt keeps the overall look playful and dynamic instead of overly rigid. It is the kind of dress that turns a simple outfit into a full fashion statement with very little extra work, which is refreshing given how committed people are to making dressing harder than necessary.

💖 Why You’ll Love It

🖤 Strapless fitted bodice that creates a strong statement silhouette

The structured strapless upper half gives this dress a much sharper shape than a softer casual denim mini. It frames the shoulders and neckline cleanly, which makes the whole look feel more fashion-led from the start. That fitted bodice also creates a stronger contrast against the pleated lower half, helping the dress read clearly from a distance. It is a strong option for shoppers who want one piece to do most of the styling work on its own.

✨ Washed denim finish that adds vintage character

The lighter washed denim gives the dress a more worn-in Y2K feel than a darker or cleaner denim would. This makes the piece feel more lived-in and visually textured without losing the sharpness of the silhouette. Because the wash already adds character, the outfit feels more complete even before accessories are added. That gives the dress more visual payoff than a flat basic fabric finish.

🖤 Oversized belt details that bring structure and edge

The bold belt accents across the bust and hip area create stronger visual contrast and make the dress feel more styled than a standard strapless mini. These details break up the denim body in a way that adds dimension and gives the piece a more directional streetwear finish. They also help reinforce the waist and silhouette without relying on unnecessary extra styling. That makes the dress feel more defined and much more memorable.

✨ Pleated mini skirt that adds movement and balance

The pleated hem softens the stronger bodice and belt construction by giving the lower half more motion and shape. This keeps the dress from feeling too stiff or overly severe, especially when styled with boots, heels, or a shorter jacket. The fuller movement also helps the piece photograph well and feel more dynamic in motion. It creates a balanced silhouette that feels bold without becoming visually heavy.

🖤 One-piece styling solution with major outfit payoff

Some dresses need layers, belts, and too many add-ons to feel complete, but this one already carries enough structure and visual interest to stand on its own. That means you can keep the rest of the styling more focused and still get a full result. It works especially well when you want to look highly styled without spending an hour pretending indecision is a creative process. It is dramatic, wearable, and genuinely useful for statement dressing.

👗 Outfit Aesthetic

Y2K strapless denim dress for early-2000s inspired going-out styling

This dress fits naturally into Y2K fashion because of its strapless neckline, washed denim finish, mini length, and bold hardware-inspired belt details. It works especially well with boots, slimmer jackets, smaller bags, and statement accessories that support a more recognizable early-2000s silhouette. The result feels nostalgic, but still sharp enough for current fashion styling. For shoppers building a Y2K-focused wardrobe, this is a clear statement piece.

Grunge inspired mini dress for darker contrast-driven looks

The washed denim body paired with the oversized black belt accents also gives this piece a grunge-inspired direction that feels especially strong with darker footwear and more rugged outerwear. It has enough edge to work with distressed textures, leather jackets, or heavier accessories without losing the shape of the dress. Because the structure remains clean, the final look still feels polished rather than messy. That makes it useful for shoppers who want grunge influence with stronger visual control.

Edgy feminine partywear with a more structured silhouette

This piece also works naturally as edgy feminine partywear because it balances a body-skimming strapless top with a shorter pleated skirt. The overall shape feels bold and confident, but the skirt keeps the look from becoming too severe. Styled with heels or boots, it moves easily into a stronger evening direction. That makes it practical for parties and going-out looks where more presence matters.

Streetwear inspired denim mini dress for fashion-led city styling

The bold hardware look of the belts and the structured denim body also push this dress into a streetwear-leaning fashion category, especially when paired with a cropped jacket and stronger boots. It feels more directional than a soft denim dress and much more visually clear than a plain mini. That gives it strong city-style appeal for shoppers who like statement outfits that still feel current. It reads as intentional from every angle.

Vintage inspired washed denim dress with modern contrast detail

The denim wash gives the piece a vintage-inspired finish, while the exaggerated strapless construction and bold belt placement keep the styling modern. This mix helps the dress feel trend-aware without looking overly futuristic or too costume-driven. It works especially well for shoppers who want a piece with retro influence but contemporary fashion structure. That balance gives it much stronger long-term styling appeal.

🧵 Material & Details

This dress is made from denim, giving it a more structured feel that supports the fitted strapless bodice and the shape of the pleated mini skirt. The fabric appears substantial enough to hold the silhouette cleanly through the body without collapsing, which is important for a dress built around stronger contrast and visible structure. The washed finish softens the overall look and gives it more vintage-inspired texture while still keeping the piece fashion-forward. It feels bold and shaped rather than soft or fluid.

Material: Denim

Color: Washed blue denim with black contrast belt detail

Includes: 1 dress

📏 Sizes & Fit Details

Available sizes: S, M, L

S: Bust 29.1 in (74 cm), Waist 27.6 in (70 cm), Hips 33.1 in (84 cm), Length 22.0 in (56 cm)

M: Bust 30.7 in (78 cm), Waist 29.1 in (74 cm), Hips 34.6 in (88 cm), Length 22.4 in (57 cm)

L: Bust 32.3 in (82 cm), Waist 30.7 in (78 cm), Hips 36.2 in (92 cm), Length 22.8 in (58 cm)

This denim mini dress is designed with a more fitted bodice and hip area for a defined silhouette, while the pleated lower section adds shape and movement. If you are choosing between sizes, comparing bust, waist, and hip measurements will help you decide whether you want a closer structured fit or a slightly easier feel through the body.

🧺 Care Instructions

Wash gently in cold water with similar colors to help maintain the denim wash, overall structure, and contrast belt detailing. Because the silhouette depends on the shape of the bodice and pleated lower section, gentler handling can help the dress continue to sit cleanly through the body over time. Avoid harsh bleach and strong heat, and lay flat or hang to dry for the best result. Use low heat only if needed.

For storage, hang the dress in a way that supports the strapless bodice and helps the pleated hem stay smooth between wears. Gentle care will help preserve the structure that gives the dress its strongest visual impact.

🎀 Perfect For

Going-out outfit styling with boots, heels, or a cropped jacket

This dress is a strong option for shoppers who want a going-out look with much more personality than a basic bodycon mini. The strapless bodice and oversized belt detail already create a strong silhouette, which means the rest of the styling can stay focused and controlled. It works especially well with boots, heels, or a shorter jacket that keeps the waist and hip structure visible. That makes it practical for parties, nightlife, and more styled weekend looks.

Y2K fashion looks with a bolder denim statement piece

If your wardrobe leans toward early-2000s silhouettes, washed denim, stronger belts, and statement mini dresses, this piece fits in immediately. The shape feels compact and fashion-led, while the denim keeps the look grounded enough to style repeatedly. Because the design already has enough edge, you do not need to overload the rest of the outfit to get a clear result. That makes it especially useful for shoppers who want a louder Y2K piece that still feels wearable.

Fashion-led city dressing where the dress needs to carry the look

This piece works especially well for city looks where one stronger garment is meant to anchor the entire outfit. The contrast between the structured bodice, pleated hem, and bold belts gives the dress enough presence to lead without requiring much extra styling. That makes it useful for street-style dressing, travel fashion moments, and more curated off-duty looks. It does the work of several separate styling decisions without asking you to assemble them manually like some kind of emotional flat-pack furniture.

Concerts and styled photo moments with stronger visual structure

The shape and detail of this dress make it especially effective for concerts, social content, and styled photos where silhouette matters clearly on camera. The belts create contrast, the denim wash adds texture, and the pleated hem gives the lower half more movement so the outfit reads strongly from different angles. That makes it a useful option for occasions where a standard mini dress would feel too flat. It is built to register visually without becoming chaotic.

Giftable statement dress for shoppers who love edgy Y2K fashion

This dress also works as a gift because it feels far more distinctive than a standard denim mini while still staying inside a very clear fashion category. The washed finish, strapless construction, and bold belt details give it immediate personality, but the denim base keeps it understandable and wearable. It suits shoppers drawn to Y2K fashion, grunge-inspired streetwear, edgy feminine partywear, and fashion-led denim silhouettes. As a gift, it feels memorable, high-impact, and genuinely special.

✨ Styling Ideas

🖤 Pair it with a cropped leather jacket for a sharper grunge look

A cropped leather or distressed jacket works especially well with this dress because it reinforces the contrast and edge without hiding the structure of the bodice and hip details. This helps the whole outfit feel more grounded and directional for city styling or evening looks. The jacket adds texture while keeping the silhouette visible. It is a strong option when you want the look to feel bolder without adding clutter.

✨ Wear it with knee-high boots for a stronger Y2K finish

Knee-high or mid-calf boots pair naturally with the strapless denim mini because they extend the silhouette and support the more dramatic early-2000s direction. This styling choice helps the dress feel even more intentional for parties, night looks, and street-style dressing. Because the dress already has enough visual structure, the boots can stay clean and simple. The final result feels sharp and controlled.

🖤 Keep jewelry focused so the neckline stays clean

The strapless neckline already creates a strong upper-body line, so the styling often works best with one focused necklace or cleaner jewelry instead of heavy layering. This keeps the neckline visible and helps the dress remain the central statement piece. A single choker or short necklace is usually enough to complete the upper half. The dress does not need a committee of accessories shouting over it.

✨ Let the dress stay central by keeping the rest of the outfit selective

This is the kind of piece that already carries a full look through shape, denim texture, and belt detail, so the accessories work best when they stay relatively controlled. One bag, one shoe direction, and a small amount of jewelry are usually enough to complete the outfit. That keeps the final result more polished and makes the dress easier to repeat across different occasions. A strong dress should lead the styling, not enter combat with every item around it.

🖤 Use outerwear and shoes to shift the mood from streetwear to partywear

One of the easiest ways to change the direction of this piece is through what you layer over it and what you wear on your feet. A distressed jacket and boots can make it feel more grunge and streetwear-led, while cleaner heels or sleeker outerwear can move it toward party dressing. This gives the dress more versatility than it first appears to have. It lets you change the mood without needing an entirely different outfit.

This vintage Y2K denim dress is a strong choice for shoppers who want a mini dress with far more presence than a standard strapless silhouette. With its washed denim finish, structured bodice, oversized belt accents, and pleated hem, it brings contrast, attitude, and real styling payoff into one bold piece.

Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 79348816307

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell y2k dress

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.4 ★★★★★
Based on 26 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
M
moxielady
Grantham, US
★★★★★ 2
I Really Wanted to Like This, But...
Format: Audiobook
My 2 star review is entirely due to the audio performance. While the premise and scholarly research in this book is fascinating, the narration is anything but. The narrator speaks, and at times even PERFORMS, every "quote" and "unquote" no matter where they are in the text. In a long (20 hours) book relying heavily on quotations, this narrative choice dramatically detracts from the listener's ability to absorb the material. One wonders why he doesn't say, "period," after every sentence! In addition, he sounds like he's spraying a lot of spit at the mike while speaking. Yes, euw. I listen to 3-8 audiobooks a week, and have done so since the early 1990s, so this isn't my first, or even my first scholarly, audiobook. The better narrators designate quoted text with a shift in vocal tone or slight pause. If you are considering this book, I hope you choose the print version.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 5, 2021
A
West Palm Beach, US
★★★★★ 3
Good to excellent content - terrible publishing policy
Format: Hardcover
Lewis (Not "Flewis") wrote a decent text a number of years ago. It was then expanded to a companion volume (Analytical Sedimentology) with another author. The two nicely complement each other but the mind boggles at a price of almost $100 per each. The publisher has clearly made little effort to control the cost. Redundancy between the two volumes is excessive, hard cover rather than soft is used and, indeed, both could easily have been combined in one less pricey volume. A valuable resource to students and professionals has therefore been compromised by publisher, author or both due to ignorance, greed or stupidity. A terrible shame!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on January 5, 1998
J
Verified Purchase
JMB1014
Boise, US
★★★★★ 5
An Excellent Introduction to Legal and Constitutional Reasoning
Format: Hardcover
This is an excellent introductory volume for people who feel confused by the debate over "original intent" versus a "living Constitution." David A. Strauss is a law professor at the University of Chicago. His book is a quick read (139 pages), with no notes, bibliography or other impedimenta - just an index. It's a very lucid explanation of legal reasoning and how the Supreme Court has followed this basic process over time. Hence the "living constitution" is really just an instance of the English common law tradition functioning normally. This book will teach many Americans how legal reasoning actually operates in practice. It is a common-sensical and conservative process that seeks at once to promote predictability and fairness. By and large, it has worked well. The phrase "living Constitution" has been denigrated by people who seek to turn back the calendar to a day when more "traditional" values were imposed by law. In so doing, they have invoked an historical fiction, the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution. The myriad problems arising from this effort, if not its disingenuousness, have been discussed with insight and erudition by such excellent minds as Jack Rakove ("Original Meanings")and Akhil Reed Amar ("The Bill of Rights," and "The American Constitution: A Biography"), to name just two. The real point of this book, I think, is to explain basic legal reasoning to a mass audience. This does a great service. It also shows how naturally the common law evolves, how it tends to restrain judicial activism and yet to permit flexibility as times and circumstances change. As Dean Roscoe Pound of the Harvard Law School put it in his book, "The Spirit of the Common Law," the common law is "essentially a mode of judicial and juristic thinking, a mode of treating legal problems rather than a fixed body of definite rules...." This is a critical distinction. Some so-called conservatives insist that judges must simply apply the law like automatons, as if it were a "fixed body of definite rules." They then seek to enlist the founding fathers in declaring what those rules are, or how definite they must be. But as Dean Pound and centuries of legal history demonstrate, this notion is far removed from the truth, and remote from any useful notion of adjudication. All Anglophone law schools, lawyers and judges are engaged in the process Dean Pound discusses. The common law tradition arose in England over the course of centuries. We imported it to this country in part because it was workable and practical, and because it was brilliantly and systematically expounded by Chief Justice Edward Coke in the 17th century and by Lord William Blackstone shortly before the American Revolution. No one would suggest that the common law tradition means the law is the captive of judges' subjective whims. Such an assertion would have sounded ludicrous to the English as well as to the founders. But as Strauss - and volumes of legal history - unsurprisingly demonstrate, the common law tradition is the key to constitutional interpretation. The common law is an inherently conservative instrument. It evolves incrementally. Those who complain about the "living Constitution" argue that judges merely rule according to their subjective prejudices. They contend that it is the legislative branch that should be charged with interpreting the Constitution. Of course, all three branches of government must interpret the Constitution from time to time. But the legislative branch should not have the last word in determining whether its own enactments meet constitutional scrutiny: To borrow from Chief Justice Coke, no one (including the legislature) may be the judge of his own cause. The function of determining whether legislation conforms to the Constitution has been and still is wisely confided to the courts, which by virtue of centuries of practice (as reflected in published opinions) have substantial expertise in the area and are independent. One also hears complaints that judges are insulated from reality. But courts are not insulated - they are independent. And they are independent precisely so they are not subject to being influenced by lobbyists or terrified by a challenger in a primary election. To show how the common law works, Strauss discusses the evolution of constitutional thought in relation to two major issues: freedom of speech and segregation in public schools. He explains how the "clear and present danger" test in freedom of speech cases evolved, implicating not just such considerations as the threat of imminent harm, but also that some kinds of speech have lower societal value (libel, obscenity, fighting words), while other kinds of speech have more societal value (great literature, political speech). Strauss goes on to discuss how Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was far less a radical overturning of an entrenched precedent, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), than a logical step in the development of the law. In so doing, he uses an example from the law of torts, where customers injured by dangerous products originally were barred from suing the manufacturer unless they had a contractual relationship with it. At first, the fact that a product was inherently dangerous overcame the requirement of a contractual relationship. As it became harder to draw a line between ordinary products and those that were inherently dangerous, however, the old requirement of a contractual relationship was found to have outworn its purpose and customers were permitted to sue the manufacturer who had created a foreseeable risk of harm. Thus, in products liability cases, as in racial equality cases, the law evolved to meet the new demands posed by changed circumstances. Strauss shows the development of the law by discussing cases on racial equality decided after Plessy that gradually undercut the Plessy decision until it was no longer tenable. Strauss does what law professors do every day: teach the law by showing how it evolved. His explanation, however, is so concise and clear that it makes the discussion seem not just sensible but compelling. Thus we see that the law works. As Strauss points out, we never wrangle over some constitutional issues because they are cut and dried (you have to be 30 years old to be a senator) or because certainty is required (January 20 is the day the new president takes office, no matter how unstable the current domestic or world situation). Other provisions require more effort to interpret, but this is because the founders brilliantly provided that some matters could be spelled out specifically in advance, while others would have to be expressed in more general terms, which could be adjusted to changing needs and times (e.g., the "necessary and proper" clause in Article I, Sec. 8). Interestingly, Strauss does not consider amendments to the Constitution to be part of what makes it a living document, since the amendment process is so onerous, slow, and seldom used. He points out how some amendments merely ratified the status quo, or served to clean up outliers, resolved technical issues, or were ahead of their time. As he offers these judgments, which seem balanced and reasonable, he also explains some of the less familiar amendments in a way that will have readers raising their eyebrows and saying "Oh, so that's where that came from." At the outset of the book, Strauss sets out three objections to originalism: That it is often, as a practical matter, impossible even for professional historians to discover what the intentions were of various founders with respect to matters discussed in the Constitution. That even if an intent of the founders could be discovered, it would pertain to the understanding they had about their world: how does one go about trying to fit that understanding to our world? That as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, one generation is to another as one sovereign nation is to another. The world belongs to the living. The notions of people long dead cannot bind us in the present or future. Strauss correctly observes that the third of these objections is by itself fatal to originalism. The founders were not so impressed with themselves that they felt their "intentions" should be forever imposed on posterity. Had they been dedicated to such a dubious project, they would surely have done a better job of documenting their debates and compromises during the Philadelphia convention. But little remains of those deliberations aside from the notes kept by James Madison. The Constitution, moreover, reflects their understanding that the future could not be shackled forever to the time in which they lived. They realized that the slave trade, for example, would prove intolerable and therefore provided that it could be abolished by at least 1808. So was their "original intent" to permit the slave trade, or was it that the slave trade should be abolished? And what does this say, if anything, about their intentions toward the institution of slavery - a word that did not even appear in the Constitution until the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted in 1865? Most damning of all to the originalist position is what Thomas Jefferson said on the subject. In a letter dated July 12, 1816, to Samuel Kercheval, Jefferson wrote "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." He added, "Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs." He even called for revision of the constitution at stated periods. While originalists would love to claim Jefferson as one of their own, his words - and indeed his whole life - prove that he was completely at odds with their approach. Men like Jefferson and Franklin, who were devotees of science, were fascinated by the progress men could make in trying to understand and improve their lives. Jefferson was an eager student of nature and did considerable experimentation with crops on his plantation. He famously wrote his "Notes on the State of Virginia" to refute the widely read claims of the French naturalist Buffon about the supposedly weak, degenerate, and insipid life forms to be found in the New World. The idea that such men, who were committed to the growth of knowledge, would seek to confine all future generations to the limited understanding they possessed of the universe in 1787, is worse than laughable. It can only be explained by the polemical purposes of those whose arguments for a regressive social order are so feeble that they have to seek refuge behind an imaginary "original intent" that they erect - as if the founders wanted their limited knowledge and often unarticulated, conflicting, or ambivalent intentions to restrict the great national experiment forever. Given the explicit language of Thomas Jefferson, quoted above, it is apparent that "originalism" actually belies and defies the express intent of Jefferson, one of the most eminent of the founders. It seems paradoxical but it was his original intent that his original intent should not govern future generations! Original intent also appears anomalously restrictive when one considers that the founders never contemplated the existence of an Air Force, though they expressly provided for the Army and the Navy. And ask an originalist what the original intent was with respect to the Second Amendment's use of the term "arms." The founders had no concept of assault rifles or machine guns, let alone nerve gas, laser-guided bombs, predator drones, or nuclear weapons. How do we impose an intention on them to assert what they could not have foreseen, namely, that ordinary householders in the 21st century should have a personal, constitutional right to be able to obliterate a small army in a matter of seconds, based on the founders' notions about the 18th century saber, musket or pistol? Likewise, the Eleventh Amendment says nothing to prohibit a person from suing her own state - just other states. Yet even "textualists" read an unwritten provision into the Eleventh Amendment because it suits their view of how "sovereign" the states should be. When given this kind of a taste of their own medicine, originalists collapse in helpless sputtering and exasperation. Exposed to Strauss' very sensible discussion, the concerns of originalists reflect opportunism and disingenuousness. After all, we should not expect lawyers and judges to become armchair historians, especially under the time pressures of litigation and in the face of hotly contested issues. We should not pretend the founders had some monolithic intent, least of all with respect to matters of which they had no concept. And as Jefferson pointed out, the relationship of one generation to another is like that of one sovereign nation to another: we cannot expect to bind future generations by the intentions of people who are long since dead. In short, there will always be those who resist change and those who welcome it. If you really want to see "judicial activism" at work, you will not find much of it in the common law tradition. A far better example is the recent decision - by the so-called conservatives on the Supreme Court - in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
B
Verified Purchase
Benjamin Douglass
San Leandro, US
★★★★★ 5
An Excellent Read
Format: Kindle
The author talks about our constitution as a "living document" and expertly draws the distinction between this and the originalist interpretation as a "dead document."
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 5, 2018
F
Verified Purchase
Frederick S. Goethel
Pawtucket, US
★★★★★ 4
The Constitution: A Living or Static Document
Format: Hardcover
There has been a debate over the past several decades on whether the US Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted according to current mores and standards or whether it is a static document that should be interpreted using only the meaning found in the original wording of the document. The author, in this book, makes the case that the Constitution is, in fact, a living document that should be interpreted by modern standards and by using principles of common law. There are examples given that, quite frankly, are very persuasive. For instance, if the Constitution were interpreted using original language, we would not have the freedom of speech that we now enjoy. A careful reading of the First Amendment will show that only Congress was prohibited from making laws that abridged free speech. There were no constraints on the states or on other governmental bodies. Whether or not you agree with the author on how the Constitution should be interpreted, this book will make for some though provoking reading and interesting discussion. The book was well written, fairly easy to understand and should be read by all who are concerned about where the Supreme Court is now and where it is headed.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 23, 2010

recommand products