I did. I then passed it along to my more conservative mother for her to read. I was unimpressed. It was written for people who haven't extensively read Constitutional Law.
The law does not belong to your druid blackrobes.
The Constitution vests in the Supreme Court all cases arising out of Federal Law and under the Constitution (Art. III, Section 1). Someone has to determine what vague words like "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means. Someone has to call an end to the contraversy. The Constitution vests that in the Courts. That's the fundamental flaw in Levin's argument - he doesn't like the Supreme Court's rulings, so he tries to argue judicial review isn't Constitutional. The argument is quite fallacious - which is why not even Scalia agrees with this position. (If he did, he would refuse to review a whole heck of a lot more cases than he does.)
Do you believe our rights come from God?
If I were to suggest to you that you can understand the Bible by reading the writings of Carl Sagan -- who would skew it to fit his own atheist views -- then you wouldn't really be able to understand the Bible at all. You need to go to the source and the source's source. It's fine to read critics, even a good idea, but you won't understand the book itself by reading only critics.
Modern day law book authors often act as critics of the Constitution in its original form and intent. That's why they so fancy the idea of a living constitution that can be amended by the courts rather than by the people and their representatives.