What do you think?
Rate this book
We Hold These Truths: Understanding the Ideas and Ideals of the Constitution
Adler explores the significant passages of what he calls "the American Testament"--the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Gettysburg Address--and brings them alive, explaining what they mean to us now and what can be done in the future to improve the Constitution.
278 pages, Hardcover
First published March 20, 1987
12 people are currently reading
282 people want to read
About the author
Mortimer J. Adler
595 books1,055 followersNumerous published works of American educator and philosopher Mortimer Jerome Adler include
How to Read a Book
(1940) and
The Conditions of Philosophy
(1965).
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
April 26, 2014
The Testaments of Democracy
Adler presents an engaging discussion of what he classes as the three defining documents of the USA — the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution (plus amendments, especially the First Ten amendments - known as the Bill of Rights), and the Gettysburg Address, and their inter-relations, especially between the Declaration and the Constitution.
He calls them the American Testaments, since when interpreted together and in relation to one another, they are like the sacred scriptures of the nation.
Adler claims that through detailed examination and critical exegesis, much can be gained from them.
- From the Declaration — DERIVE the nation's basic articles of political faith.
- From the Preamble & Amendments — UNDERSTAND the elaboration of these articles of political faith in terms of governmental aims, structures and policies.
- From the Gettysburg Address — give to ourselves a full and rich CONFIRMATION of our faith in these articles. And also in the people who declared, formed the ‘more perfect union’ and perpetuated it.
Best Quote: We are not only the heirs of those people, we ARE those people.
The Parts of the Whole
The first part of the book is devoted to declarations about the importance of learning these three documents - both for understanding the nation and to charting the future course of democracy.
From then on, the book focuses on a minute examination of the three documents.
Before the exegesis commences, Adler indulges in a discussion about two words: Ideas & Ideals.
These two words look alike and sound alike but have different meanings, and form the very core of this book.
To summarize, we can distinguish the two thus:
- IDEAS — are to be understood, intellectually and can be theoretical or practical.
- IDEALS — are objectives/goals to be striven for, and realized/realizable through action.
Once an Ideal is realized, it is no longer an ideal. Only realizable goals are ideals, if not they are utopian fantasies. Genuine ideals belong to the realm of the possible.
We need only think of an ideal society to understand that most underlying ideas of any constitution remain unrealized. We have only remotely approximated most ideals, including the practicable ones.
Which is why we need to understand the ideas and their most ideal natures and objectives, to understand how they have served us and how they can serve us further.
Some of the ideas addressed are - equality, inalienable rights, pursuit of happiness, civil rights and human rights, consent of the governed, the dissent of the governed, people (form of by etc) and thus Democracy itself.
Of these ideas, Equality, happiness, etc. generates ideals that are clearly not yet achieved.
Democracy too is an idea that is also an ideal - i.e. not fully realized yet.
After delineating ideas and ideals, Adler proceeds to set out the ideas and then examine if they have been realized and the ideals we need to aspire to realize more fully
The second part of the book is concerned with isolating and explaining the ideas identifiable in the Declaration of Independence & Lincoln’s famous speech. They are only considered as ideas in this section and their more important role as pursuable ideals are discussed only later.
The third part isolates the additional ideas found in the Preamble and then foes on to also consider them as ideals, still on the road to fulfillment.
The Fourth section of the book is devoted to the most important idea of the modern world - the idea of democracy. This is considered in great detail and more importantly, in both political and economic aspects.
Adler says that this idea has only recently been recognized as an ideal. Which is why it requires the fullest possible realization of Political and Economic Justice, Liberty and Equality. We are made to consider also the obstacles to be overcome if a true democracy is to ever be born for the FIRST time in the history of the world.
This was my favorite section of the book — most interesting being the discussion on the economic imperative of true democracy, without which it will always remain an ideal, an idea-in the making. Democracy is not a Political idea, it cannot be attained through political means alone. The goals have to include both political and economic ideals.
The Individual Obligation to Philosophy
Adler wrote this book as an homage to the second centennial celebration of the Declaration of Independence. Mere flag waving, convocations or oratory will not suffice to celebrate such an event and its two centuries of development.
What would instead be a better homage to the idea of democracy is to focus on individual celebrations — by accepting the obligation to understand the ‘testament of the nation.’ I would go further and say that this spirit should be maintained at every election year, and even more, at every democratically vital moment a nation passes through.
I read this to gain that spirit as India prepped for the world’s largest democratic spectacle. In spite of studying the constitution many times, I have always felt that it had to be more than mere study that is expected. Adler has made me realize that it is direct engagement with the core ideas and ideals that is required along with constant reinterpretation of the arguments. That is the only way to make sure that we stay true to the ideals and keep re-charting the course we have taken.
To set out to understand the Ideas & Ideals enshrined in any constitution is nothing less than a philosophical undertaking, and that is what Adler demands of us.
It is true that Adler talks primarily of the American Constitution, but readers from any country can come away from this reading with a better appreciation of how to engage with their own Testaments. We are not merely the heirs of the people who gave them to us, we ARE those people and it is our duty, both to confirm them and to fulfill them.
December 6, 2021
God almighty, just thinking about this book is still enough to send me into a frothing rage. Instead of reading and construing the Constitution as a historical and legal document (via the legal understanding of legal terms of art, the immediate historical background and the evil to be remedied, the understanding of the ratifiers, etc.), he interprets the Constitution much like he treats the other "Great Books" -- by stripping Sacred Words like Liberty and Justice and Welfare and then looking them up in the half-witted Syntopicon to see what the other Great Books have to say about them.
April 4, 2008
This book compares the ideas of the U.S. Constitution to those of the Declaration of Independence. Although Adler is a bit long-winded and repetitive on some points, his view of the ideals of these two documents (and also the Gettysburg Address, but that is barely mentioned in the book) is a fresh look at some rather played-out themes. I never would have thought of looking to the Declaration of Independence as a way of examining the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. I think every politician or would-be politician should read this book.
July 2, 2022
The philosopher Adler wrote the book “We Hold These Truths” in 1987, celebrating the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. According to Adler, the United States of America was born in 1789 with the Constitution's rectification and the Federal Government's establishment. Between the Independence War and 1789, America had thirteen solvencies forming a loose union. Since 1789, it has been one solvency, where people are both citizens of the United States and the state they reside in. In “We Hold These Truths,” Adler retraces the ideals and ideas behind the establishment of the United States, the first modern democratic country. These ideals and ideas were stated in the Declaration of Independence and implemented in the Constitution. They include basic rights, consent for government, and common goods. After explaining these ideas, the author proposed one step further: considering economic equality as a basic right.
The primary function of a state is safeguarding human rights. Human rights consist of basic rights and constitutional rights. The former are rights a natural person has, including “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” as cited in the Declaration of Independence, which also declared that “all men are created equal.” These are “basic rights” because they are needed, not wanted, by humans. They are unalienable, i.e., cannot be taken away or given up. Therefore, a state, whatever its source of authority, cannot infringe on these rights.
The author further explained that “liberty” means freedom of action as long as it does not infringe the same of others. A state must protect, not limit, liberty. For example, the state cannot have laws restricting certain consenting private sexual behaviors, however objectionable they may be to the majority. Based on this consideration, a state can impose imprisonment through lawful procedures. A prisoner does not lose his liberty; its exercise is suspended for a period. However, the author argues that the death penalty is unjust as it permanently removes the basic rights of life and liberty. The author also discussed the idea of happiness. It means a comfortable life and moral elevation, as Plato put it. Because moral improvement has no end, we can only “pursuit happiness” instead of getting it. It is important to understand the exact meaning of these terms in the Declaration of Independence, as they are rooted in the Western thinking tradition.
The second type of rights is constitutional rights, or those prescribed by the Constitution. They are primarily political rights and relate to the idea of people’s consent. The Declaration of Independence says: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The consent is given by the people when they participate in the governance. Therefore, political rights of citizens provide legitimacy of the government. The Constitution provides ways for people to elect their representatives, through whom the people can express their views about policies and laws. The Constitution also guarantees people’s right to challenge laws through civil disobedience when these laws violate their basic rights. The right to political participation is essential for a legitimate democratic government.
The Declaration of Independence proclaimed the concept of citizen rights and the need for consent. They are implemented by the Constitution, which outlined specific “common goods” related to them in its preamble: “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” These are the tasks of the Government to secure civil rights. The author discussed in detail their meanings of the common goods and mapped them to the civil rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
After discussing and explaining these key concepts in the historical documents, the author took one step further and outlined his view on economic equality. Here the author does not mean equality of opportunities but equality of conditions. The author argues that economic equality is also a human right because people need material supplies to maintain a “decent life.” They also need some leisure time and other resources to participate in politics. Therefore, economic rights can be derived from other basic rights. The difficulty here is defining a “decent” level of life and distinguishing between “minimum standard of life” and “economic equality.” The author seems to have recognized and acknowledged the problem but did not resolve it. Although the author quoted Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D Roosevelt for support, I still think that economic equality as a human right is the author’s opinion instead of a broadly-accepted position. The author wrote another book on the topic, which may provide more discussions and support.
The book focuses on the preambles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and does not get into the main bodies. The book is valuable in exploring the ideals behind these historical documents that shape the country. The text is both profound and accessible. However, because of the last part on economic equality, I am unsure whether the rest of the book is based on the author’s personal view or well-established consensus. Therefore, it helps to read more opinions on the subject.
The primary function of a state is safeguarding human rights. Human rights consist of basic rights and constitutional rights. The former are rights a natural person has, including “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” as cited in the Declaration of Independence, which also declared that “all men are created equal.” These are “basic rights” because they are needed, not wanted, by humans. They are unalienable, i.e., cannot be taken away or given up. Therefore, a state, whatever its source of authority, cannot infringe on these rights.
The author further explained that “liberty” means freedom of action as long as it does not infringe the same of others. A state must protect, not limit, liberty. For example, the state cannot have laws restricting certain consenting private sexual behaviors, however objectionable they may be to the majority. Based on this consideration, a state can impose imprisonment through lawful procedures. A prisoner does not lose his liberty; its exercise is suspended for a period. However, the author argues that the death penalty is unjust as it permanently removes the basic rights of life and liberty. The author also discussed the idea of happiness. It means a comfortable life and moral elevation, as Plato put it. Because moral improvement has no end, we can only “pursuit happiness” instead of getting it. It is important to understand the exact meaning of these terms in the Declaration of Independence, as they are rooted in the Western thinking tradition.
The second type of rights is constitutional rights, or those prescribed by the Constitution. They are primarily political rights and relate to the idea of people’s consent. The Declaration of Independence says: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The consent is given by the people when they participate in the governance. Therefore, political rights of citizens provide legitimacy of the government. The Constitution provides ways for people to elect their representatives, through whom the people can express their views about policies and laws. The Constitution also guarantees people’s right to challenge laws through civil disobedience when these laws violate their basic rights. The right to political participation is essential for a legitimate democratic government.
The Declaration of Independence proclaimed the concept of citizen rights and the need for consent. They are implemented by the Constitution, which outlined specific “common goods” related to them in its preamble: “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” These are the tasks of the Government to secure civil rights. The author discussed in detail their meanings of the common goods and mapped them to the civil rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
After discussing and explaining these key concepts in the historical documents, the author took one step further and outlined his view on economic equality. Here the author does not mean equality of opportunities but equality of conditions. The author argues that economic equality is also a human right because people need material supplies to maintain a “decent life.” They also need some leisure time and other resources to participate in politics. Therefore, economic rights can be derived from other basic rights. The difficulty here is defining a “decent” level of life and distinguishing between “minimum standard of life” and “economic equality.” The author seems to have recognized and acknowledged the problem but did not resolve it. Although the author quoted Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D Roosevelt for support, I still think that economic equality as a human right is the author’s opinion instead of a broadly-accepted position. The author wrote another book on the topic, which may provide more discussions and support.
The book focuses on the preambles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and does not get into the main bodies. The book is valuable in exploring the ideals behind these historical documents that shape the country. The text is both profound and accessible. However, because of the last part on economic equality, I am unsure whether the rest of the book is based on the author’s personal view or well-established consensus. Therefore, it helps to read more opinions on the subject.
July 21, 2022
I read this book after reading Adler’s introduction to Aristotle. I was interested to see how Aristotelian thought as well as Adler’s grasp on law history come together to form an analysis on our nation’s laws.
There’s a lot to like about this book, as it is a concise and entertaining review of the text in both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution (mostly focusing on the Constitution). It is by someone who cares about our nation and our rule of law, and who is a prominent intellectual that has spent a lot of time in this area. Many books and essays on topics like these tend to be very dry, don’t flow very well, or are overly technical with their legal jargon. This book is definitely not that. Further reasons to like this work - there are troubling constitutional law related political trends, on both sides of the isle, that lead to some bad ideas. For example, two extremes: the idea that our constitution is easy to read and interpreting it in every case is just a matter of reading a few sentences OR that our constitution should just be ignored in cases due to changing times. A work like this, that dives into the meaning of our law, philosophically and morally, as well as what it technically means, helps a lot toward expelling such ideas, and getting all Americans interested in learning about our system of government.
Having said that, I give it 3 stars due to what I see as shortcomings in its conciseness. A lot of clauses and wordings in our constitution have heavy debate around them. Adler does a great job in some areas to dissect the popularly held meanings, and gives his opinion on the intent of the law. For example, his treatment of the General Welfare Clause is satisfactory to me, given the size of the book. But other aspects of our law and processes are glossed over without even hints toward there being a larger debate. For example, the roll of the Supreme Court, particularly in its ability to strike down a law as unconstitutional (Adler says this is not an ability supported by our constitution… and it is only stated in a couple sentences).
Finally, I am confused on what seem to be contradictory views espoused, or at minimum, views where I can’t understand where he stands or where he thinks our laws stand. I have finished this book just as the Roe v Wade precedent was reversed, and it gives me an example to explain what I mean. On the question of “Substantive Due Process” or similar ideas that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution support the idea of implicit rights that legislatures (state and federal) cannot violate. (Please note I’m not talking specifically about abortion in this paragraph, but generally the theory of Substantive Due Process). It seems Adler takes the side of something similar to Substantive Due Process. Maybe not in this specific clause, but generally in his view of what law is, and what the Declaration and Constitution say our law is. He specifically makes reference to a Georgia Supreme Court case of sodomy, where the court upheld the law. He explicitly states it should have been struck down. But he has already mentioned that the Supreme Court does not have such abilities, and he states many times that the Bill of Rights and further amendments post civil war era don’t go far enough to allow our government to protect rights (as is its purpose). So I’m a bit confused… what does our law say about arbitrary law, specifically laws found to violate rights of life, liberty, and property without a purpose? On one side, he says a law should have been struck down, on the basis of implicit rights. On the other side, he says the constitution needs to list more rights explicitly for them to be protected. It’s unclear where the line is here, or where he thinks the line is. Many founders (Federalists for the most part) believed the Bill of Rights was not even necessary, because they believed the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness were clearly supersets of a Bill of Rights, and therefore any list of rights within the superset would be redundant and potentially dangerous. Adler doesn’t give a clear answer like the the Federalists do. And further, the view of the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down laws is instrumental to any such view, and he seems to be on both sides of the fence on its ability. On one hand, he thinks it is not supported by written law. On the other hand, he thinks it is supported via precedent. This confuses me on to what he thinks is law, what is written or what is precedent? And if a mixture, it should be explained more. But I do understand such debates are hard to fit into a concise overview of our law.
So overall, it is worth the read, at least to understand some thoughts on how an Aristotelian looks at our nation’s most important documents, or to read a good example of a serious attempt to understand or nation’s laws. But there are some odd omissions (statements without acknowledging some core debates) and it does get confusing at times to understand his position on what our law is. Perhaps a more careful re-read can help with some of these issues.
There’s a lot to like about this book, as it is a concise and entertaining review of the text in both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution (mostly focusing on the Constitution). It is by someone who cares about our nation and our rule of law, and who is a prominent intellectual that has spent a lot of time in this area. Many books and essays on topics like these tend to be very dry, don’t flow very well, or are overly technical with their legal jargon. This book is definitely not that. Further reasons to like this work - there are troubling constitutional law related political trends, on both sides of the isle, that lead to some bad ideas. For example, two extremes: the idea that our constitution is easy to read and interpreting it in every case is just a matter of reading a few sentences OR that our constitution should just be ignored in cases due to changing times. A work like this, that dives into the meaning of our law, philosophically and morally, as well as what it technically means, helps a lot toward expelling such ideas, and getting all Americans interested in learning about our system of government.
Having said that, I give it 3 stars due to what I see as shortcomings in its conciseness. A lot of clauses and wordings in our constitution have heavy debate around them. Adler does a great job in some areas to dissect the popularly held meanings, and gives his opinion on the intent of the law. For example, his treatment of the General Welfare Clause is satisfactory to me, given the size of the book. But other aspects of our law and processes are glossed over without even hints toward there being a larger debate. For example, the roll of the Supreme Court, particularly in its ability to strike down a law as unconstitutional (Adler says this is not an ability supported by our constitution… and it is only stated in a couple sentences).
Finally, I am confused on what seem to be contradictory views espoused, or at minimum, views where I can’t understand where he stands or where he thinks our laws stand. I have finished this book just as the Roe v Wade precedent was reversed, and it gives me an example to explain what I mean. On the question of “Substantive Due Process” or similar ideas that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution support the idea of implicit rights that legislatures (state and federal) cannot violate. (Please note I’m not talking specifically about abortion in this paragraph, but generally the theory of Substantive Due Process). It seems Adler takes the side of something similar to Substantive Due Process. Maybe not in this specific clause, but generally in his view of what law is, and what the Declaration and Constitution say our law is. He specifically makes reference to a Georgia Supreme Court case of sodomy, where the court upheld the law. He explicitly states it should have been struck down. But he has already mentioned that the Supreme Court does not have such abilities, and he states many times that the Bill of Rights and further amendments post civil war era don’t go far enough to allow our government to protect rights (as is its purpose). So I’m a bit confused… what does our law say about arbitrary law, specifically laws found to violate rights of life, liberty, and property without a purpose? On one side, he says a law should have been struck down, on the basis of implicit rights. On the other side, he says the constitution needs to list more rights explicitly for them to be protected. It’s unclear where the line is here, or where he thinks the line is. Many founders (Federalists for the most part) believed the Bill of Rights was not even necessary, because they believed the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness were clearly supersets of a Bill of Rights, and therefore any list of rights within the superset would be redundant and potentially dangerous. Adler doesn’t give a clear answer like the the Federalists do. And further, the view of the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down laws is instrumental to any such view, and he seems to be on both sides of the fence on its ability. On one hand, he thinks it is not supported by written law. On the other hand, he thinks it is supported via precedent. This confuses me on to what he thinks is law, what is written or what is precedent? And if a mixture, it should be explained more. But I do understand such debates are hard to fit into a concise overview of our law.
So overall, it is worth the read, at least to understand some thoughts on how an Aristotelian looks at our nation’s most important documents, or to read a good example of a serious attempt to understand or nation’s laws. But there are some odd omissions (statements without acknowledging some core debates) and it does get confusing at times to understand his position on what our law is. Perhaps a more careful re-read can help with some of these issues.
January 5, 2013
This is a very good book that gets you thinking about our nation and the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address. It also includes these documents as well as excerpts from other documents such as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.
June 7, 2024
AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN WHAT ALL OF US SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION
Mortimer Jerome Adler (1902-2001) was an American philosopher, educator, and popular author, who worked at various times for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and his own Institute for Philosophical Research.
He wrote in the first chapter of this 1987 book, “the personal obligation of every citizen of the United States is to understand as well as possible the three documents [Declaration of Independence; Constitution, Gettysburg Address] that are our American testament---words that should be piously revered even though they are not in a strict sense this country’s holy scriptures… this work … [is] helping readers understand the uniqueness of the United States of America, and encourages them to look to its future as well as to its origin and development.” (Pg. 8-9) Later, he adds, “The aim of this book is to set forth what every citizen, both young and old, should know about the ideas and ideals of the Constitution.” (Pg. 18)
He asks, “Is there any respect in which all human beings, without exception, can be declared equal? Yes, there is only one. It is that they are all human, all members of one species… and all having the same natural and thereby the same specific attributes that differentiate them from the members of all other species. In all other respects, any two human beings may be found unequal, one having more of a certain human attribute than another... there is no conflict or contradiction between saying (1) that all human beings are equal in respect of their common humanity, and (2) that all human beings are also unequal… in a wide variety of respects in which they differ as individual members of the human species.” (Pg. 42)
He suggests, “It would… appear to be the case that the death penalty is unjust as a violation of a natural human right. Nevertheless, capital punishment has been pragmatically justified as serving the welfare of society by functioning as a deterrent to the gravest of felonies… For the time being, we are left with an unresolved issued between proponents and opponents of capital punishment. The substitution of life imprisonment for the death penalty might solve the problem.” (Pg. 50)
He points out, “the presence of natural needs in brute animals does not rise to their possession of natural rights. Only persons… have the right to life as a means of living well and a right of liberty of action as a means of carrying out the free choices they make in the pursuit of happiness. The fact that we are morally obliged to treat brute animals as humanely as possible… should not be interpreted as an acknowledgement of their having natural rights to either life or liberty… Our moral obligation here is a matter of charity, not of justice, because it does not stem from the rights of brute animals." (Pg. 61)
He notes that in the days of the drafting of the United States Constitution, “A large part of the population was outside the pale of political life…. The young disenfranchised by their age, the women disenfranchised by their gender, the blacks disenfranchised by their enslavement, and a large number of white male adults disenfranchised by their lack of sufficient property to pay a poll tax, made up that portion of the population who were not members of ‘the people.’ They were in fact an overwhelming majority.” (Pg. 85)
He observes, “It may come as a surprise, even as a shock… that … equality of treatment, equality of opportunity, equality of conditions---is not mentioned … as one of the major values of the government being instituted… Why did our Founding Fathers make no reference to equality in the Preamble?... The answer may lie in their recognition of the fact that in calling for the establishment of justice, they were also, implicitly if not explicitly, insisting that the government being instituted should attempt to establish as much equality as justice requires, not only the equal protection of the laws for all citizens but also equality of treatment in other respects, equality of conditions as well as equality of opportunity.” (Pg. 96) Later, he adds, “There is one political ideal that does not make its appearance in the Constitution’s Preamble. That is the ideal of democracy, the first step toward which was taken by the amendments adopted immediately after the Civil War.” (Pg. 137)
He argues, “the best solution of the problem of how to secure the economic rights and establish the economic equality that are the indispensable underpinnings of political democracy is by some combination of the two means for doing so: by every individual or family having a dual income, partly from the wages or salaries of labor, accompanied by some welfare benefits, and partly from the revenues earned from income-producing property through the ownership of equities in capital. The ideal, of course, would be … for the possession of all the economic goods to which individuals have a right---the minimum needed for a decent human life, for the proper exercise of political liberty, and for an effective pursuit of happiness.” (Pg. 154-155)
He acknowledges, “I wish I could unhesitatingly recommend a second constitutional convention in light of novel conditions and innovations that exist today but did not exist in the preceding centuries… I cannot do so for three reasons. The first is the prevalence in our da of single-issue politics that would prevent a constitutional convention from concentrating on the public common good instead of trying to serve the interests or prejudices of special groups in the population. My second reason… [Is that] Its daily sessions would be exposed to the disturbing glare of nationwide publicity, including televised broadcasts… My third and final reason is the absence in our society today of statesmen or persons in public life of a caliber comparable to those who assembled in Philadelphia in 1787… the best minds in our much larger population do not go into politics as they did in the eighteenth century... Their minds are not as well cultivated and their characters not as well formed.” (Pg. 160-161)
This book will be of interest to many students of American political science and history.
Mortimer Jerome Adler (1902-2001) was an American philosopher, educator, and popular author, who worked at various times for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and his own Institute for Philosophical Research.
He wrote in the first chapter of this 1987 book, “the personal obligation of every citizen of the United States is to understand as well as possible the three documents [Declaration of Independence; Constitution, Gettysburg Address] that are our American testament---words that should be piously revered even though they are not in a strict sense this country’s holy scriptures… this work … [is] helping readers understand the uniqueness of the United States of America, and encourages them to look to its future as well as to its origin and development.” (Pg. 8-9) Later, he adds, “The aim of this book is to set forth what every citizen, both young and old, should know about the ideas and ideals of the Constitution.” (Pg. 18)
He asks, “Is there any respect in which all human beings, without exception, can be declared equal? Yes, there is only one. It is that they are all human, all members of one species… and all having the same natural and thereby the same specific attributes that differentiate them from the members of all other species. In all other respects, any two human beings may be found unequal, one having more of a certain human attribute than another... there is no conflict or contradiction between saying (1) that all human beings are equal in respect of their common humanity, and (2) that all human beings are also unequal… in a wide variety of respects in which they differ as individual members of the human species.” (Pg. 42)
He suggests, “It would… appear to be the case that the death penalty is unjust as a violation of a natural human right. Nevertheless, capital punishment has been pragmatically justified as serving the welfare of society by functioning as a deterrent to the gravest of felonies… For the time being, we are left with an unresolved issued between proponents and opponents of capital punishment. The substitution of life imprisonment for the death penalty might solve the problem.” (Pg. 50)
He points out, “the presence of natural needs in brute animals does not rise to their possession of natural rights. Only persons… have the right to life as a means of living well and a right of liberty of action as a means of carrying out the free choices they make in the pursuit of happiness. The fact that we are morally obliged to treat brute animals as humanely as possible… should not be interpreted as an acknowledgement of their having natural rights to either life or liberty… Our moral obligation here is a matter of charity, not of justice, because it does not stem from the rights of brute animals." (Pg. 61)
He notes that in the days of the drafting of the United States Constitution, “A large part of the population was outside the pale of political life…. The young disenfranchised by their age, the women disenfranchised by their gender, the blacks disenfranchised by their enslavement, and a large number of white male adults disenfranchised by their lack of sufficient property to pay a poll tax, made up that portion of the population who were not members of ‘the people.’ They were in fact an overwhelming majority.” (Pg. 85)
He observes, “It may come as a surprise, even as a shock… that … equality of treatment, equality of opportunity, equality of conditions---is not mentioned … as one of the major values of the government being instituted… Why did our Founding Fathers make no reference to equality in the Preamble?... The answer may lie in their recognition of the fact that in calling for the establishment of justice, they were also, implicitly if not explicitly, insisting that the government being instituted should attempt to establish as much equality as justice requires, not only the equal protection of the laws for all citizens but also equality of treatment in other respects, equality of conditions as well as equality of opportunity.” (Pg. 96) Later, he adds, “There is one political ideal that does not make its appearance in the Constitution’s Preamble. That is the ideal of democracy, the first step toward which was taken by the amendments adopted immediately after the Civil War.” (Pg. 137)
He argues, “the best solution of the problem of how to secure the economic rights and establish the economic equality that are the indispensable underpinnings of political democracy is by some combination of the two means for doing so: by every individual or family having a dual income, partly from the wages or salaries of labor, accompanied by some welfare benefits, and partly from the revenues earned from income-producing property through the ownership of equities in capital. The ideal, of course, would be … for the possession of all the economic goods to which individuals have a right---the minimum needed for a decent human life, for the proper exercise of political liberty, and for an effective pursuit of happiness.” (Pg. 154-155)
He acknowledges, “I wish I could unhesitatingly recommend a second constitutional convention in light of novel conditions and innovations that exist today but did not exist in the preceding centuries… I cannot do so for three reasons. The first is the prevalence in our da of single-issue politics that would prevent a constitutional convention from concentrating on the public common good instead of trying to serve the interests or prejudices of special groups in the population. My second reason… [Is that] Its daily sessions would be exposed to the disturbing glare of nationwide publicity, including televised broadcasts… My third and final reason is the absence in our society today of statesmen or persons in public life of a caliber comparable to those who assembled in Philadelphia in 1787… the best minds in our much larger population do not go into politics as they did in the eighteenth century... Their minds are not as well cultivated and their characters not as well formed.” (Pg. 160-161)
This book will be of interest to many students of American political science and history.
April 23, 2021
I've usually found Adler to be at least a clear and careful thinker, but in These Truths he sometimes stumbles into logical quagmires trying to reconcile his priors with foundational American ideals. For instance, Adler attempts to argue that liberty and equality are not competing ideals despite admitting that humans are variably endowed. Such intitial conditions (freedom and human variation) allowed to develop without political intervention would (and do) create and perpetuate inequality. Despite this muddy thinking, there are some highlights. Adler's choice of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address as the three foundational, must-read American document is of course spot on. The prose is also unfortunately stilted and do not make for an enjoyable reading experience despite this being aimed at a popular audience.
June 2, 2014
Interesting but stuffy
March 21, 2023
3.5 rounded up, because even though I might not agree with everything he said, it was educational and thought-provoking.
I wanted to read this book to self-educate in preparation for teaching my children in homeschool; but after reading it, I feel that every serious American should read this book, or some book like it, and thoughtfully consider the ideas presented, and what he or she is doing about his “consent of the governed.” I really only read the 2/3 front matter very well, as the last third of the book is appendices, containing excerpts from the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. I was listening to an audiobook, but this is not the type of book that I can imbibe well on audio. Not even an e-book would work well for me with this type of philosophical, deep, abstract book.
I thought it might be helpful to use in a high school government class, if an adult would assign one chapter per week, say, and have the children write down questions and ideas and thoughts that come to them, and once per week, hold a discussion on that chapter. Maybe, in addition to another book that was more comprehensive, this would produce much more informed citizenry than we currently have.
However, I am not sure if this is the best book for that, in spite of so many thought-provoking statements and help to understand the meanings of the three documents that he covers; because at times, from my understanding of what he was saying, which I could be wrong, since I was listening on audio, and I might have misunderstood him, or not fully comprehended his meaning, he was illogical about some of his conclusions or practical applications. For example, I didn’t agree with his thinking on the death penalty, economic equality, the words “created” and “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, and some of his other suggestions in the final chapter about what could be corrected, such as eliminating the electoral college, impeachment, or rewriting the Constitution. I certainly agreed with him that we do not have the moral or educational caliber today to be able to write a better Constitution. But I wonder if he had lived to see the current days if he would’ve said everything exactly as he did, or if he would’ve offered different suggestions.
I wanted to read this book to self-educate in preparation for teaching my children in homeschool; but after reading it, I feel that every serious American should read this book, or some book like it, and thoughtfully consider the ideas presented, and what he or she is doing about his “consent of the governed.” I really only read the 2/3 front matter very well, as the last third of the book is appendices, containing excerpts from the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. I was listening to an audiobook, but this is not the type of book that I can imbibe well on audio. Not even an e-book would work well for me with this type of philosophical, deep, abstract book.
I thought it might be helpful to use in a high school government class, if an adult would assign one chapter per week, say, and have the children write down questions and ideas and thoughts that come to them, and once per week, hold a discussion on that chapter. Maybe, in addition to another book that was more comprehensive, this would produce much more informed citizenry than we currently have.
However, I am not sure if this is the best book for that, in spite of so many thought-provoking statements and help to understand the meanings of the three documents that he covers; because at times, from my understanding of what he was saying, which I could be wrong, since I was listening on audio, and I might have misunderstood him, or not fully comprehended his meaning, he was illogical about some of his conclusions or practical applications. For example, I didn’t agree with his thinking on the death penalty, economic equality, the words “created” and “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, and some of his other suggestions in the final chapter about what could be corrected, such as eliminating the electoral college, impeachment, or rewriting the Constitution. I certainly agreed with him that we do not have the moral or educational caliber today to be able to write a better Constitution. But I wonder if he had lived to see the current days if he would’ve said everything exactly as he did, or if he would’ve offered different suggestions.
April 25, 2023
Adler's deconstruction on the Declaration and Constitution is excellent, laying out the crux of these documents into easy to follow, logical arguments. However, the end of the book poorly covers landmark Supreme Court cases and the reasoning behind the majority and dissenting opinions. Adler makes many half-baked and controversial justifications at this point which greatly detract from the overall work. An initially promising but disappointing book.
November 15, 2017
Definitely not a fair rating but so much in this book went right over my head. Dense and not easy to understand.
September 18, 2020
Too dated and way too soft on what, in 2020, have become some hard issues.
December 4, 2020
A timeless, classic introduction to the ideals and vision of the Constitution. Must read for any serious student of the Constitution.
October 16, 2025
Very helpful for the historical parts, but very unhelpful in some of his ideas of where we should have gone economically.
Liked it.
Liked it.
December 18, 2020
Interesting analysis, but Adler twists the Founders’ meaning into a socialist dream. This reading of these documents is inexcusable. No, the Founders did not intend to create equality of outcome. And, no, a government is not best which satisfies the needs of its citizens. Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin all knew that was the road to tyranny. Anyone who is so well read as Adler should know this too.
January 31, 2015
Should say I am re-reading it. First read it when it came out over 20 years ago. I am in the midst of unpacking right now and as I fill my bookshelves again it is not hard to get lost for hours - days! - in rediscovering my old book friends. This is the one I will take with me tomorrow for the ride to MPLS. Let's see how he withstands the test of time
May 15, 2015
Very educational.
April 13, 2021
Very powerful!
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews