This work is the fourth of a four-volume treatise. In twelve sections, it covers: Death of Contract, Full Faith & Credit, 9th Amendment: Only an 'Inkblot'?, Other Jurisdictional Usurpations by The Court for Itself, Ashcroft Hearings: 'Pyrrhus Testifies', Field Test 1: The Government and Major League Baseball vs. The Taxpayers-Into the Judicial Bull-Pen, Field Test 2: Joan of Arc vs. IRS-Of Hamster Nostrils, Hexing Studies, and the Government's Official Renunciation of The Federalist, Field Test 3: Anatomy of a Judicial Murder: Of Beanbags, Unnatural Acts with Sheep, and a Judicial Pardon for a Governor, Ex-Cathedra: Perpetuity of Infallible Error, Two Constitutions: The Court's vs. The Founders', Judici Officium Suum Excedenti Non Paretur: Constitutional Convention Anyone? The volume is styled, The Kiss of Judice: The Constitution Betrayed-A Coroner's Inquest and Report. 'Judice', Latin, a pun, means 'pertaining to judges'; thus denoting the judicial, Judas-like betrayal of the Constitution. 'Coroner's Inquest' denotes that the work is a study into the death of the Constitution. Your author is the Coroner. He proceeds in the Inquest with the aid of his Coroner's Jury: Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Story, Locke, and Blackstone. The work in the first two volumes of the treatise is a dialogue between the Coroner and his jury on the various parts of the Constitution covered. The jury members answer the Coroner's questions, for the most part in their own words, drawn from a variety of their written works. Occasionally the Coroner puts words in their mouths; those 'inventions' are shown in brackets in the jurors' answers. In the third and fourth volumes, the lessons of the Founders in Volumes 1 and 2 are applied to cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Most readers will be astonished at how often the supreme court has gotten it wrong either in result, reasoning, or both. The work is novel, because, to the author's knowledge, it is the only 'Constitutional Law' textbook that collects the wisdom of the framers as the Constitution's only authoritative sources; it does not, as most Constitutional Law texts do, emphasize court cases as constitutional authority, for more often than not, the court has only warped the Constitution. In a broader sense, though, the work is not novel, for it's only an arrangement of the work already done by the jurors. The author is pleased to say that the work, by and large, is not original thought. Its beauty is that it only revives long-forgotten constitutional 'discoveries' as set in the words of the main jurors and some others within 'interviewed'.