What do you think?
Rate this book
TIME The Constitution: The Essential User's Guide
Americans have debated the Constitution since the day its was signed, but rarely in its 223-year history have so many disagreed so fiercely about so much. Everywhere there seems to be debate about the Constitution's meaning and message. The Tea Party, with its almost fanatical focus on the founding document, contends that its primary purpose is to restrain the federal government-but does it really say that? Among scholars, some believe the Constitution should be interpreted exactly as the framers wrote it, while others analyze the text just as closely to find the elasticity they believe the framers had in mind. But how could the founding fathers know about the world today, with DNA, sexting, airplanes, TV, Medicare, computers and Lady Gaga? In this probing and accessible book, TIME's editors bring the founding document to life, showing how it was written in a spirit of change and revolution and turbulence. With an introduction by one of America's top jurists, an essay by
TIME managing editor Richard Stengel (former president of the National Constitution Center), and the full text of the 8,000-word Constitution annotated to show its most controversial passages and little-known quirks, TIME's compact volume will be an indispensable guide for the well-informed citizen.
TIME managing editor Richard Stengel (former president of the National Constitution Center), and the full text of the 8,000-word Constitution annotated to show its most controversial passages and little-known quirks, TIME's compact volume will be an indispensable guide for the well-informed citizen.
144 pages, Hardcover
First published May 8, 2012
14 people are currently reading
77 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 19, 2025
Finished this last night.... couple thoughts:
- it is our civic duty to be familiar with the constitution
- I loved the times annotation of the original text, helped to increase comprehension of some dated vocabulary.
-Trump is in clear violation of at least 2 amendments
-by definition of the book, we are in a constitutional crisis
- it is our civic duty to be familiar with the constitution
- I loved the times annotation of the original text, helped to increase comprehension of some dated vocabulary.
-Trump is in clear violation of at least 2 amendments
-by definition of the book, we are in a constitutional crisis
February 26, 2017
I highly recommend this book as an easy introduction into the founding document of our government and culture. It's accessible and provides the context from which the Constitution and Amendments were written. I have a much greater appreciation for the complexity and consideration that went into the Constitution, the men that debated at length, and the articulateness of the document itself.
December 7, 2020
Like “The Easy Guide to The US Constitution and Other Important American Documents”, this book offers objective, illuminating annotations that explain the context of all major sections of the Constitution, but it does not offer a modern text translation like “The Easy Guide”. However, unlike “The Easy Guide”, this book includes several essays and an introduction penned by former US Supreme Court Chief Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, that offer comments and views on what’s considered to be the grandest document on self-government ever conceived by mankind.
I’ve done a bit of study on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and have completed the Hillsdale College online course, The Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution, so I think I have a point of view worth considering. Although the annotations in this book are great, I found the essays even more interesting, especially because the speakers don’t entirely agree on what the Constitution means and how it should be interpreted, if at all.
O’Connor, who was the first female chief justice, offers a somewhat “originalist” viewpoint though her legacy is often described as moderate and centrist. She begins by acknowledging that some “people question whether the US Constitution lives up to the needs of modern citizens”, then rebuts: “I think a fairer question is whether modern citizens--We the People--are living up to the needs of our Constitution.” O’Connor laments that many Americans are “not good citizens” because they do not understand the Constitution. “To be a good citizen, you need to know how our government works,” she explains. “And to do that, you need to know the Constitution.”
Failing to understand the Constitution often leads people to seek alternative political frameworks like socialism and communism. It also leads to demands for radical changes in our system of government. The recent calls to eliminate the Electoral College is a good example. Some consider this component of our presidential elections as anti-democratic and nefarious, but this view is rooted in a deficient understanding of the Electoral College’s purpose. The fact that our political discourse--even the speakers of the essays of this book--describe our system of government as a democracy--instead of a republic as the Founding Fathers designed it--is a testament to our ignorance about how our government is supposed to work.
Whose fault is this ignorance? I submit that the blame lies both with our public schools and the media.
In his essay, “One Document, Under Siege”, Managing Editor of Time Magazine and former CEO of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Richard Stengel, reverses O’Connor’s chiasmus, arguing that the Constitution does not adequately serve the needs of the people. In his conclusion he offers his own chiasmus that rebuts O’Connor’s: “The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution. That’s what the framers would say.”
Sort of. I think Stengel needed to make a distinction between the Natural Law principles upon which the document is based (equality, liberty, justice, Natural Law, and the belief in a Creator), and the amendments that reflect our efforts to apply those principles justly in society.
Stengel would like to see the document updated, amended, revised, and always interpreted; for, he does not seem to agree with the founders that the purpose of government is to protect the Natural Rights of people (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.) Stengel suggests that the purpose of government changes with the times. His is a “progressive”--and contradictory--view of the document that the founders would probably have opposed. The Constitution’s “underlying principles do not change,” writes Stengel, but in the paragraph that follows comes the contradiction: “Still, those principles evolve and how they are adapted to contemporary situations is not always clear.”
Isn't evolution synonymous with change? The principles in our founding document are rooted in Natural Law, which is static and universal. The principles need no evolution because they are timeless, because they already stand as the ultimate ideal, because they are the perfect standard conceived by the Creator. Does the principle that all people are created equal need evolution? Or do humans need to evolve instead and rise to the standards set forth by our founding document? It was not the Constitution that failed blacks during slavery but the behavior of southerners who refused to live up to the principle of equality set forth in the Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence.
Stengel adds that the “framers weren’t afraid of a little messiness. Which is another reason we shouldn’t be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it.” Although some of the founders were unsure if the document would actually work, they viewed the principles upon which it was based as relevant in all ages because they were based on reason and Natural Law. The notion that the principles must be changed and interpreted to fit with the times is challenged by many conservatives and “originalist” judges who argue that this progressive view undermines the purpose of the Constitution.
Indeed, in the third essay, “The Anchor of our Republic,” former judge and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University, Michael W. McConnell emphasizes that the document “contains enduring principles of free government”, but when “we face constitutional issues today” we ask “how those principles apply to the often very different circumstances now.” We don’t change the principles to accommodate the problems we face, but determine how those problems square, if at all, with the founding principles and if amendments need to be refined or new ones written to fulfill the principle . At least, this is how justice is supposed to work in America.
So who is right? The progressives or the originalists? Should the Constitution be changed and interpreted to fit the times, or should it be read strictly as the founders wrote it? Or somewhere in between? This is a discussion that the speakers in the “The Constitution: The Essential User’s Guide” begin and one that should continue in our public discourse.
I’ve done a bit of study on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and have completed the Hillsdale College online course, The Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution, so I think I have a point of view worth considering. Although the annotations in this book are great, I found the essays even more interesting, especially because the speakers don’t entirely agree on what the Constitution means and how it should be interpreted, if at all.
O’Connor, who was the first female chief justice, offers a somewhat “originalist” viewpoint though her legacy is often described as moderate and centrist. She begins by acknowledging that some “people question whether the US Constitution lives up to the needs of modern citizens”, then rebuts: “I think a fairer question is whether modern citizens--We the People--are living up to the needs of our Constitution.” O’Connor laments that many Americans are “not good citizens” because they do not understand the Constitution. “To be a good citizen, you need to know how our government works,” she explains. “And to do that, you need to know the Constitution.”
Failing to understand the Constitution often leads people to seek alternative political frameworks like socialism and communism. It also leads to demands for radical changes in our system of government. The recent calls to eliminate the Electoral College is a good example. Some consider this component of our presidential elections as anti-democratic and nefarious, but this view is rooted in a deficient understanding of the Electoral College’s purpose. The fact that our political discourse--even the speakers of the essays of this book--describe our system of government as a democracy--instead of a republic as the Founding Fathers designed it--is a testament to our ignorance about how our government is supposed to work.
Whose fault is this ignorance? I submit that the blame lies both with our public schools and the media.
In his essay, “One Document, Under Siege”, Managing Editor of Time Magazine and former CEO of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Richard Stengel, reverses O’Connor’s chiasmus, arguing that the Constitution does not adequately serve the needs of the people. In his conclusion he offers his own chiasmus that rebuts O’Connor’s: “The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution. That’s what the framers would say.”
Sort of. I think Stengel needed to make a distinction between the Natural Law principles upon which the document is based (equality, liberty, justice, Natural Law, and the belief in a Creator), and the amendments that reflect our efforts to apply those principles justly in society.
Stengel would like to see the document updated, amended, revised, and always interpreted; for, he does not seem to agree with the founders that the purpose of government is to protect the Natural Rights of people (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.) Stengel suggests that the purpose of government changes with the times. His is a “progressive”--and contradictory--view of the document that the founders would probably have opposed. The Constitution’s “underlying principles do not change,” writes Stengel, but in the paragraph that follows comes the contradiction: “Still, those principles evolve and how they are adapted to contemporary situations is not always clear.”
Isn't evolution synonymous with change? The principles in our founding document are rooted in Natural Law, which is static and universal. The principles need no evolution because they are timeless, because they already stand as the ultimate ideal, because they are the perfect standard conceived by the Creator. Does the principle that all people are created equal need evolution? Or do humans need to evolve instead and rise to the standards set forth by our founding document? It was not the Constitution that failed blacks during slavery but the behavior of southerners who refused to live up to the principle of equality set forth in the Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence.
Stengel adds that the “framers weren’t afraid of a little messiness. Which is another reason we shouldn’t be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it.” Although some of the founders were unsure if the document would actually work, they viewed the principles upon which it was based as relevant in all ages because they were based on reason and Natural Law. The notion that the principles must be changed and interpreted to fit with the times is challenged by many conservatives and “originalist” judges who argue that this progressive view undermines the purpose of the Constitution.
Indeed, in the third essay, “The Anchor of our Republic,” former judge and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University, Michael W. McConnell emphasizes that the document “contains enduring principles of free government”, but when “we face constitutional issues today” we ask “how those principles apply to the often very different circumstances now.” We don’t change the principles to accommodate the problems we face, but determine how those problems square, if at all, with the founding principles and if amendments need to be refined or new ones written to fulfill the principle . At least, this is how justice is supposed to work in America.
So who is right? The progressives or the originalists? Should the Constitution be changed and interpreted to fit the times, or should it be read strictly as the founders wrote it? Or somewhere in between? This is a discussion that the speakers in the “The Constitution: The Essential User’s Guide” begin and one that should continue in our public discourse.
February 18, 2021
This is a great and quick read of the Constitution of the United States. Sandra Day O'Connor introduces the reader to this book from the eyes of an involved citizen and the expertise of a Supreme Court Justice. There is a brief history of the document and additionally it provides a commentary that succinctly explains each article and amendment. I believe every citizen of this country should read this book and become acquainted with our Constitution and other founding documents.
July 16, 2017
The entire constitution, including amendments with prefatory comments that put it in a greater political and historical context. In line comments explain outdated or dense language and continue to present context. Well worth reading. Can't believe I never read the Constitution before.
January 30, 2024
Easy read for novices to understand the constitution and its origins. The annotations really help the reader understand the specific why behind each article/amendment as it relates to the historical context. Well done TIME.
February 13, 2025
Awesome essential book
March 19, 2017
A very simple, easy to read introduction to studying the Constitution. I rather enjoyed it.
May 22, 2015
This book contains a series of short and accessible essays on topics like the role of the Constitution in contemporary policy debates, the Constitutional Convention and the need for civic education. Intended for a lay reader, they lay out basic arguments in everyday speech but are somewhat simplified and are really only an entry point for understanding the Constitution's role today. The second half of the book is a heavily annotated copy of the Constitution and Amendments themselves. The essays are very good, but the annotation is where this little book shines. The notes are well formatted, thorough yet clear, and explain the original intent and later ramifications of the document in a surprisingly engaging way. It is an excellent resource for someone reading the document for the first time or as a good refresher.
July 25, 2016
essential reading for the aspiring american voter. also people who love having opinions. this short book has 4 great essays on how the constitution has applied to issues down the ages of the american nation. afterward is the annotated text to the constitution itself as well as all the amendments.
comforting was the fact that the document has been generating intense debate from its very inception. even the drafters themselves argued over the meaning of passages. and they thought it was great feature.
comforting was the fact that the document has been generating intense debate from its very inception. even the drafters themselves argued over the meaning of passages. and they thought it was great feature.
January 3, 2013
Excellent guide for the layman to understand the U.S. Constitution, with plenty of annotations to explain otherwise stilted and archaic language sometimes appearing in the text of the constitution. (Example: "...no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood...")
The essays included in the book also shed historical light on the document, the times during which it was drafted, and how the document's principles relate to today's world - unknowable to the framers.
The essays included in the book also shed historical light on the document, the times during which it was drafted, and how the document's principles relate to today's world - unknowable to the framers.
November 1, 2012
A good read. The introductory chapters provide some solid context and the annotations clarified the language of the actual document.
In all, it was pretty solid.
I mean, come on, it's the Constitution - how can you say something bad about it?
In all, it was pretty solid.
I mean, come on, it's the Constitution - how can you say something bad about it?
August 1, 2015
"We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 225 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the US's moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights."
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews