What do you think?
Rate this book
Conscience of the Constitution, The: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty
This book follows Tooley in his travels from the largest shanty town in Africa to the mountains of Gansu, China, and of the children, parents, teachers, and entrepreneurs who taught him that the poor are not waiting for educational handouts. They are building their own schools and learning to save themselves.
217 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 2013
46 people are currently reading
214 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 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 10, 2020
In this book, Sandefur brilliantly argues that the Declaration of Independence - drafted and approved by Congress - is a part of the context within which we should examine the meaning of the Constitution. Its presumption of liberty, strongly rooted in natural, objective law should lend guidance to constitutional interpretation and application. The author persuasively rejects the moral relativism of positive law trumpeted by by those on the left and right (see e.g., Robert Bork and Cass Sunstein). Instead, he argues that the government is not the source of our rights and that the state maintains the burden to justify its impositions on human liberty. I strongly recommend this title to those interested in the law and legal history & philosophy.
July 18, 2014
Timothy Sandefur is a scholar at the Cato Institute and an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, a non profit legal foundation in Sacramento, CA, dedicated to defending economic liberty and private property rights.
This is a 6 star book that I wish people would read.
The author has done his research. The footnotes inform and are useful.
It was a good followup of reading, Terms of Engagement,
a book I reviewed on Goodreads, in that it gives more historical detail
of how the message of the Declaration of Independence has been subverted by politics.
I especially liked the chapters on the civil war, reconstitution, and the passing of the 14th amendment. I understood more deeply the South’s insistence that they were not fighting to keep slavery but to defend state’s rights. Of course, this was promulgated after they lost the war and it was not honorable to further defend slavery.
The author defines Substantive Due Process as necessary and imperative to uphold the Constitution’s purpose–and intent–to build a fence around citizens to protect against rights violations by the government (the majority).
Currently, the courts only apply that process to issues of freedom of speech and areas that involve religion. Other cases, especially relating to economic issues, use Rational Basis Review, a process that does not uphold individual rights. E.g., Kelo vs. New London, the 2005 decision to allow states to condemn private property and transfer it to private developers for profit. In this way, the State reaps the benefit of increased tax revenue. Even though the Fifth Amendment clearly states that takings be “for public use,” Justice Paul Stevens “rationalized” the decision by writing that legislatures need “broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.”
The author also clarifies Judicial “Activism” and gives cases and decisions that show how the claim of “Activism” is wrong. What is really wrong is judicial abdication--where courts do not give the necessary scrutiny to protect individual rights.
When courts turn away from the Declaration’s orienting principles, the “result is a body of law that prioritizes democracy over liberty–that encourages courts to defer to lawmakers and regulators and to shrug when politically influential factions exploit government power for their private benefit.
When members of the legal profession “adhering to the wolfish view that government has the basic right to rule, and that individual rights are only privileges given to people for society’s benefit, refuse to defend constitutional guarantees that were written to give life to the Declaration of Independence.”
It is time to defend the Conscience of the Constitution.
This is a 6 star book that I wish people would read.
The author has done his research. The footnotes inform and are useful.
It was a good followup of reading, Terms of Engagement,
a book I reviewed on Goodreads, in that it gives more historical detail
of how the message of the Declaration of Independence has been subverted by politics.
I especially liked the chapters on the civil war, reconstitution, and the passing of the 14th amendment. I understood more deeply the South’s insistence that they were not fighting to keep slavery but to defend state’s rights. Of course, this was promulgated after they lost the war and it was not honorable to further defend slavery.
The author defines Substantive Due Process as necessary and imperative to uphold the Constitution’s purpose–and intent–to build a fence around citizens to protect against rights violations by the government (the majority).
Currently, the courts only apply that process to issues of freedom of speech and areas that involve religion. Other cases, especially relating to economic issues, use Rational Basis Review, a process that does not uphold individual rights. E.g., Kelo vs. New London, the 2005 decision to allow states to condemn private property and transfer it to private developers for profit. In this way, the State reaps the benefit of increased tax revenue. Even though the Fifth Amendment clearly states that takings be “for public use,” Justice Paul Stevens “rationalized” the decision by writing that legislatures need “broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.”
The author also clarifies Judicial “Activism” and gives cases and decisions that show how the claim of “Activism” is wrong. What is really wrong is judicial abdication--where courts do not give the necessary scrutiny to protect individual rights.
When courts turn away from the Declaration’s orienting principles, the “result is a body of law that prioritizes democracy over liberty–that encourages courts to defer to lawmakers and regulators and to shrug when politically influential factions exploit government power for their private benefit.
When members of the legal profession “adhering to the wolfish view that government has the basic right to rule, and that individual rights are only privileges given to people for society’s benefit, refuse to defend constitutional guarantees that were written to give life to the Declaration of Independence.”
It is time to defend the Conscience of the Constitution.
April 17, 2014
Can the U.S. Constitution be understood independent of the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence?
Does the Constitution exist to protect democracy, or do democratic elements of the republic exist to protect individual liberty?
Is it possible that critics of "judicial activism" on the Right and Left have mistaken their preferences for Constitutionality?
Should judges defer to legislatures because the latter are "of the people", and legislative mistakes are easier to clean up than judicial precedents?
Timothy Sandefur grapples with these and related questions in a book that sets the Constitution in the context of the Declaration, and maintains that the former cannot be properly understood or applied without the principles of individual liberty espoused in the latter.
'Progressives', on the Right and Left, have convinced several generations of Americans that the Constitution favors majoritarianism over individual rights, democracy over liberty. Sandefur, however, says that legislatures incline toward tyranny as easily as monarchs, and that courts see their role properly when they restrain lawmakers within the bounds of the Constitution as seen through the lens of the Declaration.
'The Conscience of the Constitution' makes a compelling, thoughtful case, in accessible and vigorous prose, that we need to return to a jurisprudence, as well as a framework for lawmaking and implementation that couples these two founding documents.
Does the Constitution exist to protect democracy, or do democratic elements of the republic exist to protect individual liberty?
Is it possible that critics of "judicial activism" on the Right and Left have mistaken their preferences for Constitutionality?
Should judges defer to legislatures because the latter are "of the people", and legislative mistakes are easier to clean up than judicial precedents?
Timothy Sandefur grapples with these and related questions in a book that sets the Constitution in the context of the Declaration, and maintains that the former cannot be properly understood or applied without the principles of individual liberty espoused in the latter.
'Progressives', on the Right and Left, have convinced several generations of Americans that the Constitution favors majoritarianism over individual rights, democracy over liberty. Sandefur, however, says that legislatures incline toward tyranny as easily as monarchs, and that courts see their role properly when they restrain lawmakers within the bounds of the Constitution as seen through the lens of the Declaration.
'The Conscience of the Constitution' makes a compelling, thoughtful case, in accessible and vigorous prose, that we need to return to a jurisprudence, as well as a framework for lawmaking and implementation that couples these two founding documents.
September 27, 2020
Every American needs to read this book. "Conscience of the Constitution" succinctly and thoroughly explains the importance of maintaining impartiality in our political process, and securing liberty for all people, not just the favored few.
December 19, 2016
This was my first Timothy Sandefur book, and it was exceptional from start to finish. In it, he paints us a picture of a purposive and principled constitutional order—one chartered and given color by the values set forth in our Declaration of Independence. With an abundance of revealing references and lively analogies, Sandefur demonstrates that our Constitution has “a specific normative direction” based on “substantive political values” that demands bold resolutions to some of the legal academy’s most controversial debates. Along the way, he takes his distinctive approach to bear on a host of entrenched views about the warrant of majority rule, the primacy of states’ rights, the modesty of the Fourteenth Amendment, the impropriety of so-called judicial activism, and of course, the unspeakable “evils” of Lochner. Engaged readers will come away with a greater appreciation for the primacy of liberty, the bounds of sovereignty, the nature of the rule of law—and the genius of our Republic. I look forward to exploring the remainder of Sandefur’s catalog.
March 17, 2014
Sandefur's argument is a strong and compelling one. I'm certainly glad I read this book and feel smarter for it. Furthermore, he writes clearly and avoids excessive legalese; this book is absolutely approachable for non-academics.
I give it three stars because, at times, it is repetitive and somewhat out of order. Look forward to reading more of his articles and papers but will probably avoid any longer-form content.
I give it three stars because, at times, it is repetitive and somewhat out of order. Look forward to reading more of his articles and papers but will probably avoid any longer-form content.
September 12, 2015
An extremely important book for history and modern politics.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews