Popular debate about constitutional issues such as abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, and free speech, has become increasingly polarized, with a persistent and growing tendency to treat constitutional questions such as these as if they were easy and the answers obvious. In , Seidman and Tushnet investigate this phenomenon, tracing its beginning to the transformation of American government that accompanied the New Deal revolution over a half century ago. In their investigation, the authors examine the debates on issues such as free speech, criminal procedure, discrimination, and capital punishment, and the views of prominent figures in the field such as Robert Bork, Laurence Tribe, and Cass Sunstein. The book explores popular constitutional argument and suggests some common reasons why all sides of modern constitutional debate are unsatisfactory. It explores the reasons why constitutional argument has ceased to serve its primary function: to bridge the gaps between citizens by appealing to the principles that unite them.