What do you think?
Rate this book
Mere Natural Law: Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution
Originalism Is Not Enough
In this profoundly important reassessment of constitutional interpretation, the eminent legal philosopher Hadley Arkes argues that “originalism” alone is an inadequate answer to judicial activism. Untethered from “mere Natural Law”—the moral principles knowable by all—our legal and constitutional system is doomed to incoherence.
The framers of the Constitution regarded the “self-evident” truths of the Natural Law as foundational. And yet in our own time, both liberals and conservatives insist that we must interpret the Constitution while ignoring its foundation.
Making the case anew for Natural Law, Arkes finds it not in theories hovering in the clouds or in benign platitudes (“be generous,” “be selfless”). He draws us back, rather, to the ground of Natural Law as the American Founders understood it, the anchoring truths of common sense—truths grasped at once by the ordinary man, unburdened by theories imbibed in college and law school.
When liberals discovered hitherto unknown rights in the “emanations” and “penumbras” of a “living constitution,” conservatives responded with an “originalism” that refuses to venture beyond the bare text. But in framing that text, the Founders appealed to moral principles that were there before the Constitution and would be there even if there were no Constitution. An originalism that is detached from those anchor - ing principles has strayed far from the original meaning of the Constitution. It is powerless, moreover, to resist the imposition of a perverse moral vision on our institutions and our lives.
Brilliant in its analysis, essential in its argument, Mere Natural Law is a must-read for everyone who cares about the Constitution, morality, and the rule of law.
In this profoundly important reassessment of constitutional interpretation, the eminent legal philosopher Hadley Arkes argues that “originalism” alone is an inadequate answer to judicial activism. Untethered from “mere Natural Law”—the moral principles knowable by all—our legal and constitutional system is doomed to incoherence.
The framers of the Constitution regarded the “self-evident” truths of the Natural Law as foundational. And yet in our own time, both liberals and conservatives insist that we must interpret the Constitution while ignoring its foundation.
Making the case anew for Natural Law, Arkes finds it not in theories hovering in the clouds or in benign platitudes (“be generous,” “be selfless”). He draws us back, rather, to the ground of Natural Law as the American Founders understood it, the anchoring truths of common sense—truths grasped at once by the ordinary man, unburdened by theories imbibed in college and law school.
When liberals discovered hitherto unknown rights in the “emanations” and “penumbras” of a “living constitution,” conservatives responded with an “originalism” that refuses to venture beyond the bare text. But in framing that text, the Founders appealed to moral principles that were there before the Constitution and would be there even if there were no Constitution. An originalism that is detached from those anchor - ing principles has strayed far from the original meaning of the Constitution. It is powerless, moreover, to resist the imposition of a perverse moral vision on our institutions and our lives.
Brilliant in its analysis, essential in its argument, Mere Natural Law is a must-read for everyone who cares about the Constitution, morality, and the rule of law.
336 pages, Hardcover
Published May 2, 2023
18 people are currently reading
1557 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 - 11 of 11 reviews
June 3, 2023
I hope that this book will one day become a staple in university readers on jurisprudence. Arkes formulated, in a clear and (most of the time) concise manner, why a jurisprudence which rests on reason and truth prevails over one which radiates from positivism and precedent alone.
Human rights exist the moment there is a human. They exist without a constitution, a bill of rights, or a declaration. They are based in the nature of what it means to be human. Decisions grounded in human nature will inevitably be reasonable and equally defensible. By ignoring this fact and basing jurisprudence around precedence and a respect for a process without content, conservative legislators and members of the judiciary have lost their greatest asset.
Defenders of life and human rights need to stop being afraid of using reason as the basis for decisions. It won't hurt to argue that it's wrong to abort a baby because it's a baby. It will cause damage, and probably has, to argue that judges who decided in favour of abortion overstepped a jurisdictional boundary.
Democracy fails when people respect democracy without caring for its moral content. Too many people adhere to the idea of wanting to fight for something noble without realising its ennobling quality. Democracy, the judicial process, and the legislature are all noble things if, and only if, they base their decisions not simply on the majority, or past decisions, or with reference to prior laws but instead in harmony with reason.
Human rights exist the moment there is a human. They exist without a constitution, a bill of rights, or a declaration. They are based in the nature of what it means to be human. Decisions grounded in human nature will inevitably be reasonable and equally defensible. By ignoring this fact and basing jurisprudence around precedence and a respect for a process without content, conservative legislators and members of the judiciary have lost their greatest asset.
Defenders of life and human rights need to stop being afraid of using reason as the basis for decisions. It won't hurt to argue that it's wrong to abort a baby because it's a baby. It will cause damage, and probably has, to argue that judges who decided in favour of abortion overstepped a jurisdictional boundary.
Democracy fails when people respect democracy without caring for its moral content. Too many people adhere to the idea of wanting to fight for something noble without realising its ennobling quality. Democracy, the judicial process, and the legislature are all noble things if, and only if, they base their decisions not simply on the majority, or past decisions, or with reference to prior laws but instead in harmony with reason.
November 20, 2025
A critique of modern conservative jurisprudence from a legal scholar and natural law expert. Hadley Arkes makes the argument that conservatives have been failing not because they don't have good arguments to make, but because they aren't making them. We have borrowed turf from our enemies, using their legal positivism as a defense of life and constitutional libert. It isn't working. The solution is not to return to the moral ambiguity of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, but to go back still further, to the Founders of our nation who recognized that even without a Constitution, without a Bill of Rights, without a Declaration of Independence, our rights would still exist, and would still be necessarily defensible.
Arkes urges conservatives to stop treating moral reasoning as if it were a violation of judicial propriety. Courts, he argues, cannot avoid moral judgments; they can only choose whether to ground those judgments in objective truths or in ideological fashion. By refusing to articulate the moral premises that make rights intelligible in the first place, conservative jurisprudence has left itself unable to answer the deeper claims of the Left. The result is a defensive, reactive posture—one that wins occasional battles but steadily loses the war.
This book is a call to recover the older, richer constitutional tradition that animated the American founding: a jurisprudence rooted in the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Arkes makes the case that only by returning to those first principles can conservatives build a legal philosophy capable not just of resisting judicial activism, but of defending the dignity of the human person and the permanent truths on which a free society depends.
Arkes urges conservatives to stop treating moral reasoning as if it were a violation of judicial propriety. Courts, he argues, cannot avoid moral judgments; they can only choose whether to ground those judgments in objective truths or in ideological fashion. By refusing to articulate the moral premises that make rights intelligible in the first place, conservative jurisprudence has left itself unable to answer the deeper claims of the Left. The result is a defensive, reactive posture—one that wins occasional battles but steadily loses the war.
This book is a call to recover the older, richer constitutional tradition that animated the American founding: a jurisprudence rooted in the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Arkes makes the case that only by returning to those first principles can conservatives build a legal philosophy capable not just of resisting judicial activism, but of defending the dignity of the human person and the permanent truths on which a free society depends.
February 2, 2026
Mere Natural Law: Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution
is author Hadley Arkes' explanation of "Natural Law" in similar explanatory fashion to C.S. Lewis' famous book, Mere Christianity - hence, the "Mere" part of Arkes' title here. With comprehensive bibliography and citing numerous decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS),
Mere Natural Law
extensively details the principles, while lamenting the Court's moving away from them, and yet still being optimistic in seeing and having hope for the return to decisions grounded in Natural Law.
Natural Law operates from the perspective of actual truth that is easily understood by the average "every day" man or woman - and not based on convoluted legal theories as clever lawyering can often create.
It accepts that there are indeed "moral truths" that are always true, in all circumstances and in all locations. There is indeed such a thing as "right or wrong." To be clear, this notion of "moral truth" is not based on any "religious" stance or the idea of religiously "moral issues." Rather, it is instead emerged out of the commonality of "right or wrong" of specific foundational and actual outright truths throughout all of humanity.
One example of a foundational "moral truth" is this maxim:
Beings who can give/understand reasons deserve to be ruled by their consent.
With that "moral truth" in mind, therefore, governments must provide reasons to justify their legislations to obtain that willing consent, especially when they impose on freedom. Otherwise, it is only "Might makes Right" which will lead to tyranny and eventually to revolt. On a side note, unlike humans, animals can never reason and, as such, animals' consent is never needed - they cannot consent anyway.
Another example of a foundational "moral truth" is that no human being should be punished or held accountable for any action to which they had no causation, power, or ability to affect. We do not put people known to be innocent in jail.
Another example is what led to the necessary abolition of slavery - i.e., that every human who can reason, regardless of race, must have all of their full and natural rights. If one is human, one can neither be owned nor own another human being.
As the author details, we have moved away from "moral truths." Instead, society (as it were) has let clever lawyering lead the Court to the perspective of "value judgments" as if different populations (e.g., different states) have different priorities regardless of "moral truth." Of course, that was the very dilemma in seeking to abolish slavery, where some "valued" the notion of slavery and others opposed that horror. In the end, as this book clarifies, "moral truth" is the only real way to get sound court judgments that last (and less likely to ever be overturned) - lest Judges simply become "feelers" of opinions instead of being "judges" making decisions based on actual "moral truths."
The next to last chapter provides a detailed account of the famous Roe v. Wade Decision that legalized pre-natal infanticide, known as abortion. Arkes provides the court details of the science that opponents laid down that the "fetus" is not merely "potential life," but has always been a separate individual once the the male and female parts form the zygotye. This was not based on a religious "value," but on known scientific embryology. The zygote is new life by its immediately identifiably new separate DNA, not a part of the mother at all. Thereby, opponents explained that extinguishing the life should not be a matter of pre-natal infanticide vs post-natal infanticide, when considering that the issue is infanticide either way. The book notes that, failing to address that scientific (and not "religious"-based) "moral truth," Roe v. Wade instead determined a "value judgment" that created a "right to abortion" that would last for 49 years.
The last rather lengthy chapter details the subsequent SCOTUS case that overturned that Decision 49 years later, Dobbs v. Jackson. The Decision was less fundamental for pro-lifers AND was not as devastating as pro-abortionists feared. Neither side was all that happy with the conclusion. SCOTUS' Dobbs Decision did not address the matter from a "moral truth" perspective that a baby is always a separated-DNA human being at any stage of its life since conception. Rather, Dobbs overturned Roe based on putting the possibilities of decision back to the states to determine their own "value judgements" in each separate state. The book notes that the Court perceived that the US Constitution says nothing about pre-natal infanticide (abortion). But as author Hadley Arkes humorously added, the Constitution also says nothing about the alphabet, even as it accepts the "moral truth" that words are formed by the letters of the alphabet (by which people can rely on the solidity of that said Constitution!).
Even so, from that decision that made neither side as "happy" as they had hoped to be, the author sees reasons for hope. As the states that do legally support pre-natal infanticide (abortion) as a "woman's choice" and as other states that legally oppose it as being "baby murder," there will still be court cases emerging in all states from either "side" that will ultimately have to get the courts back to answering the final still-unresolved question beyond mere "value judgments."
And that duality of eventual future state cases, the author hopes, will lead the courts back to "Natural Law" - making decisions based on easily-understandable "moral truths" that can be quickly understood by the "every day" man or woman - just as we did on correcting the wrongness of the slavery issue. "Right or wrong" is not a mere "value judgment" after all. There are "moral truths" indeed - the "Mere Natural Law" indeed.
I have used the word "pre-natal infanticide" as a synonym of "abortion" for two reasons. First, using the word this way reflects how language can lead or even control how our minds allow ourselves to examine an issue. Second, using the word "abortion" assumes that all sides see it the same way, and worse, it neglects the honesty that others do indeed only see the issue as infanticide, with no difference between pre-natal vs post-natal application. Whether admittedly or not, those who want the use of the word, "abortion," to define the matter alone do indeed retract to it because that less descriptive term (with all its obvious vaguery) makes it intellectually easier to not consider the issue from the other side's perspective as any form of killing of a baby at all. Hence, I used the term "pre-natal infanticide" to acknowledge that the issue is not "owned" by only one side of the matter, in a still-ongoing debate for society to resolve.
The book was larger in scope than only the debate of pre-natal infanticide (abortion). Yet, by ending on the subtopic in the lengthy last two chapters, one might otherwise make the mistake of thinking this was a book about that specific subtopic. But I would disabuse anyone from making that mistake: it was not. It just ended that way because of the massive societal ramification from the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Decision overturning the Roe v. Wade Decision after the latter had been "the law of the land" for 49 years. Ultimately, this was a book that was indeed teaching the principles of Natural Law.
I read this 338-page book over a period of 38 days - from December 25, 2025, through January 31, 2026.
It took me 787 minutes (13 hours and 7 minutes) to completely read in entirety - including underlining and making margin commentaries and notes.
This book, Mere Natural Law: Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution , was given to me as a Birthday gift in August 2023 from my beloved bride. It is now the 24th such gift-book- and is also the very last of all the books she bought herself and had given to me herself that remained - that I have read since she breathed her last breath peacefully in my arms over 19 months ago (as I write this on January 31, 2026).
It is special for me to note how the author wrote of his own late wife in the opening Acknowledgments. On page xxi - xxii, Hadley Arkes wrote, "This is the first book I've written since my beloved wife, Judy, died eight years ago." Like me, Hadley Arkes and his wife had married young and remained married for decades, as he put it, "growing up together... We became the custodians, then, of each other's biographies. And so a large part of one us would be lost when the other one of us died." Certainly, on this level, I could genuinely relate to the author and those emotions. In a larger picture of widower to widower, his "first book written" is my "last book read."
Mere Natural Law: Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution is a comprehensive book that can make sense to anyone, regardless of political preference. It is by choice to not see it as such, of course. This is an excellent, mind-opening, and informative book for anyone with the desire to understand these important principles, upon which USA's Founders themselves relied and believed when they crafted the US Constitution in the first place. The only reason I do not give this book a 5-star rating is that I felt that the subheading made me anticipate that I would be getting perhaps some sort-of bullet list of "Originalism" and "Anchoring Truths of the Constitution" - which it did not do at all. Nevertheless, this book is too excellent and informative to make any other point-rating reduction. I recommend this book for anyone interested in US law, SCOTUS, court judgements and decision-making, and of course, the principles of Natural Law themselves.
Mere Natural Law: Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution
by Hadley Arkes
is a 4-Star book.
Natural Law operates from the perspective of actual truth that is easily understood by the average "every day" man or woman - and not based on convoluted legal theories as clever lawyering can often create.
It accepts that there are indeed "moral truths" that are always true, in all circumstances and in all locations. There is indeed such a thing as "right or wrong." To be clear, this notion of "moral truth" is not based on any "religious" stance or the idea of religiously "moral issues." Rather, it is instead emerged out of the commonality of "right or wrong" of specific foundational and actual outright truths throughout all of humanity.
One example of a foundational "moral truth" is this maxim:
Beings who can give/understand reasons deserve to be ruled by their consent.
With that "moral truth" in mind, therefore, governments must provide reasons to justify their legislations to obtain that willing consent, especially when they impose on freedom. Otherwise, it is only "Might makes Right" which will lead to tyranny and eventually to revolt. On a side note, unlike humans, animals can never reason and, as such, animals' consent is never needed - they cannot consent anyway.
Another example of a foundational "moral truth" is that no human being should be punished or held accountable for any action to which they had no causation, power, or ability to affect. We do not put people known to be innocent in jail.
Another example is what led to the necessary abolition of slavery - i.e., that every human who can reason, regardless of race, must have all of their full and natural rights. If one is human, one can neither be owned nor own another human being.
As the author details, we have moved away from "moral truths." Instead, society (as it were) has let clever lawyering lead the Court to the perspective of "value judgments" as if different populations (e.g., different states) have different priorities regardless of "moral truth." Of course, that was the very dilemma in seeking to abolish slavery, where some "valued" the notion of slavery and others opposed that horror. In the end, as this book clarifies, "moral truth" is the only real way to get sound court judgments that last (and less likely to ever be overturned) - lest Judges simply become "feelers" of opinions instead of being "judges" making decisions based on actual "moral truths."
The next to last chapter provides a detailed account of the famous Roe v. Wade Decision that legalized pre-natal infanticide, known as abortion. Arkes provides the court details of the science that opponents laid down that the "fetus" is not merely "potential life," but has always been a separate individual once the the male and female parts form the zygotye. This was not based on a religious "value," but on known scientific embryology. The zygote is new life by its immediately identifiably new separate DNA, not a part of the mother at all. Thereby, opponents explained that extinguishing the life should not be a matter of pre-natal infanticide vs post-natal infanticide, when considering that the issue is infanticide either way. The book notes that, failing to address that scientific (and not "religious"-based) "moral truth," Roe v. Wade instead determined a "value judgment" that created a "right to abortion" that would last for 49 years.
The last rather lengthy chapter details the subsequent SCOTUS case that overturned that Decision 49 years later, Dobbs v. Jackson. The Decision was less fundamental for pro-lifers AND was not as devastating as pro-abortionists feared. Neither side was all that happy with the conclusion. SCOTUS' Dobbs Decision did not address the matter from a "moral truth" perspective that a baby is always a separated-DNA human being at any stage of its life since conception. Rather, Dobbs overturned Roe based on putting the possibilities of decision back to the states to determine their own "value judgements" in each separate state. The book notes that the Court perceived that the US Constitution says nothing about pre-natal infanticide (abortion). But as author Hadley Arkes humorously added, the Constitution also says nothing about the alphabet, even as it accepts the "moral truth" that words are formed by the letters of the alphabet (by which people can rely on the solidity of that said Constitution!).
Even so, from that decision that made neither side as "happy" as they had hoped to be, the author sees reasons for hope. As the states that do legally support pre-natal infanticide (abortion) as a "woman's choice" and as other states that legally oppose it as being "baby murder," there will still be court cases emerging in all states from either "side" that will ultimately have to get the courts back to answering the final still-unresolved question beyond mere "value judgments."
And that duality of eventual future state cases, the author hopes, will lead the courts back to "Natural Law" - making decisions based on easily-understandable "moral truths" that can be quickly understood by the "every day" man or woman - just as we did on correcting the wrongness of the slavery issue. "Right or wrong" is not a mere "value judgment" after all. There are "moral truths" indeed - the "Mere Natural Law" indeed.
I have used the word "pre-natal infanticide" as a synonym of "abortion" for two reasons. First, using the word this way reflects how language can lead or even control how our minds allow ourselves to examine an issue. Second, using the word "abortion" assumes that all sides see it the same way, and worse, it neglects the honesty that others do indeed only see the issue as infanticide, with no difference between pre-natal vs post-natal application. Whether admittedly or not, those who want the use of the word, "abortion," to define the matter alone do indeed retract to it because that less descriptive term (with all its obvious vaguery) makes it intellectually easier to not consider the issue from the other side's perspective as any form of killing of a baby at all. Hence, I used the term "pre-natal infanticide" to acknowledge that the issue is not "owned" by only one side of the matter, in a still-ongoing debate for society to resolve.
The book was larger in scope than only the debate of pre-natal infanticide (abortion). Yet, by ending on the subtopic in the lengthy last two chapters, one might otherwise make the mistake of thinking this was a book about that specific subtopic. But I would disabuse anyone from making that mistake: it was not. It just ended that way because of the massive societal ramification from the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Decision overturning the Roe v. Wade Decision after the latter had been "the law of the land" for 49 years. Ultimately, this was a book that was indeed teaching the principles of Natural Law.
I read this 338-page book over a period of 38 days - from December 25, 2025, through January 31, 2026.
It took me 787 minutes (13 hours and 7 minutes) to completely read in entirety - including underlining and making margin commentaries and notes.
This book, Mere Natural Law: Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution , was given to me as a Birthday gift in August 2023 from my beloved bride. It is now the 24th such gift-book- and is also the very last of all the books she bought herself and had given to me herself that remained - that I have read since she breathed her last breath peacefully in my arms over 19 months ago (as I write this on January 31, 2026).
It is special for me to note how the author wrote of his own late wife in the opening Acknowledgments. On page xxi - xxii, Hadley Arkes wrote, "This is the first book I've written since my beloved wife, Judy, died eight years ago." Like me, Hadley Arkes and his wife had married young and remained married for decades, as he put it, "growing up together... We became the custodians, then, of each other's biographies. And so a large part of one us would be lost when the other one of us died." Certainly, on this level, I could genuinely relate to the author and those emotions. In a larger picture of widower to widower, his "first book written" is my "last book read."
Mere Natural Law: Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution is a comprehensive book that can make sense to anyone, regardless of political preference. It is by choice to not see it as such, of course. This is an excellent, mind-opening, and informative book for anyone with the desire to understand these important principles, upon which USA's Founders themselves relied and believed when they crafted the US Constitution in the first place. The only reason I do not give this book a 5-star rating is that I felt that the subheading made me anticipate that I would be getting perhaps some sort-of bullet list of "Originalism" and "Anchoring Truths of the Constitution" - which it did not do at all. Nevertheless, this book is too excellent and informative to make any other point-rating reduction. I recommend this book for anyone interested in US law, SCOTUS, court judgements and decision-making, and of course, the principles of Natural Law themselves.
Mere Natural Law: Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution
by Hadley Arkes
is a 4-Star book.
October 13, 2023
Some interesting thoughts and some great points intermingled with the general lack of a thesis and various “old man yells at cloud” moments.
July 14, 2023
The Case for Natural Law
The theory of Positive Law has few consistent defenders. The left will tell you that legislative limits on gay marriage are unacceptable. The right will tell you that allowing abortion except to save the life of the mother is not legitimate. If there is more to law than statutes properly passed, what is it? Hadley Arkes makes a strong case that law is more than the opinion of the legislator. We know that one is entitled to a hearing before one is convicted whether or not a statute so holds. But just what does natural law entail? The arguments in this book are well worth considering.
The theory of Positive Law has few consistent defenders. The left will tell you that legislative limits on gay marriage are unacceptable. The right will tell you that allowing abortion except to save the life of the mother is not legitimate. If there is more to law than statutes properly passed, what is it? Hadley Arkes makes a strong case that law is more than the opinion of the legislator. We know that one is entitled to a hearing before one is convicted whether or not a statute so holds. But just what does natural law entail? The arguments in this book are well worth considering.
August 13, 2023
I’m not a political person, neither did I study law however, this book was very well versed and persuasive enough for me to look up different legal codes, SBs, etc. Admittedly, I’m not a fan of legal jargon but I still enjoy learning. I passed it on to my brother (an actual attorney) and he’s still reading this but thus far, he likes it.
Thank you, Hadley Arkes and Gateway publishing for my finished copy!
Thank you, Hadley Arkes and Gateway publishing for my finished copy!
June 3, 2024
This was a really good book about philosophy of law. Starting with Oliver Widol Holmes the separation of law from basic morality is a major mistake. Great book for lawyers with a philosophical bent
May 20, 2023
My husband read this and said that it gave him a few more insights that he was unaware of. Great writing
July 10, 2023
A lot of fluff. Lawyer commenting on famous court cases. Printed in the large type and wide line spacing typical of a Regnery publication trying to look like more than it is.
January 24, 2024
Difficult but Good Read
I enjoyed the discussion of legal deliberation, but I don't think it was as readable for the lay person as the author believes.
Still would recommend.
I enjoyed the discussion of legal deliberation, but I don't think it was as readable for the lay person as the author believes.
Still would recommend.
February 2, 2024
Not as convincing as I expected.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews