I just completed a book for 16 & 17 year olds designed to prepare them for voting and their role as citizens. I also created a teacher edition. Both are now available on Kindle. The title is, “A Student Guide To Truth, Democracy and Civic Responsibility”. I would be glad to send a complimentary PDF of the Teacher Edition to any educator who is interested.
You asked, "What would you change, or what would you have tried to change, in your school?"
I wish that in high school (or at least in college) I had learned the truth about at least the highlights of our Constitution. A college student I knew wrote a thoughtful, insightful paper for a college class, and we both thought his paper should have earned him an A. It earned him only a B. I learned that the reason was that he repeatedly said the U.S. was a "democracy" instead of a "republic." Even after learning that fact, I had no idea what the big deal was. All my life, I had heard "democracy," not "republic." Apparently, the difference between a democracy and a republic had been taught in that class. But I never took that class.
Throughout all the years of my formal education I never was taught and I never thought that we don't live in a democracy. Until law school, I never was taught and I never thought about the Constitution establishing "the supreme Law of the Land." I never was taught and I never thought about how to see or show that the Constitution was the paramount law of the land.
I never was taught and I never thought about even the fact that our Constitution expressly and specifically requires the U.S. government to "guarantee" a "Republican Form of Government." So of course, I never was taught and I never thought about why. As a child, many times I said the Pledge of Allegiance. But I never was really taught and I never really thought about even the fact that the pledge was to our "Republic" which was "indivisible" and secured "liberty and justice for all." So naturally, I never was taught or thought about why or how our Republic was indivisible or how or why it secured liberty and justice for all.
In a way that now seems not only odd but even very sadly deficient to me, I was taught and so I thought about the fact that the Declaration of Independence declared that "all Men are created equal" and "all Men" had "unalienable Rights," including the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." I wasn't taught and I never thought about how those priceless thoughts in the 1776 Declaration influenced our Constitution and eventually were incorporated into our Constitution.
Much later in life I learned that in 1866, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Schuyler Colfax, declared that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was “the gem of the Constitution . . . because it is the Declaration of Independence placed immutably and forever in our Constitution.” How is that not common knowledge among all Americans?
It is a true shame that the foregoing truth about the Fourteenth Amendment seems to be unknown even to justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. The current SCOTUS Chief Justice in his 2025 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary (https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2025year-endreport.pdf) chose to focus on both the Declaration and the Constitution. His words showed that he failed to see (or he didn't want us to see) the self-evident truth declared by Speaker Colfax 160 years ago.
First, the Chief Justice misrepresented that "the Declaration consists of [mere] 'aspirations' and 'philosophizing' that do not lend themselves well to prescription or enforcement." That assurance was belied (as Speaker Colfax emphasized) by at least the 14th Amendment (as well as by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments). The point of all those amendments was precisely and obviously to emphasize equality.
Second, the Chief Justice emphasized, "For a 'practical and pragmatic charter of government,' Americans must turn to the Constitution."
Third, he acknowledged that "the concrete provisions of the 1787 Constitution fell short of honoring the abstract principles set forth in the 1776 Declaration—most notably, in regard to the Declaration’s promise of liberty and equality."
Fourth, the Chief Justice misrepresented that "Perhaps the finest explanation for the Declaration’s continuing influence comes from one of our greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln. Speaking shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its infamous decision in the Dred Scott case."
That final falsehood may be one of the worst ever by this Chief Justice. The decision and opinions of SCOTUS justices in Dred Scott were published in 1857. Precisely and promptly to overrule the SCOTUS majority regarding Dred Scott, our Constitution was amended profoundly--repeatedly. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were proposed by Congress and ratified especially to demolish (immutably and forever) SCOTUS's Dred Scott decision and supporting opinions. Speaker Colfax was correct--160 years ago--when he publicly emphasized that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was “the gem of the Constitution . . . because it is the Declaration of Independence placed immutably and forever in our Constitution.”
There's another facet of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment that is at least as important to the brilliance of that gem of our Constitution. The Declaration said "Men," so we tend to think of "men." To this day, much ink and breath are wasted discussing the meaning of "Men" in the Declaration. Why bother? Chief Justice Roberts (quoting Justice Scalia) was right about one thing, above: "For a 'practical and pragmatic charter of government,' Americans must turn to the Constitution."
Not once does our Constitution use the word "men." The first words of our Constitution are "We the People of the United States." Even more clear and explicit, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment expressly made "Men" in the Declaration irrelevant. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment emphatically begins with the words "All persons" (male or female) "born or naturalized in the United States" and emphasizes that we all "are citizens of the United States." It emphatically secures "the privileges or immunities of citizens" (male and female) "of the United States" and emphasizes that no State may "deprive any person" (male or female) "of life, [any] liberty, or [any] property, without" all "process of law" that is "due" or "deny to any person" (male or female) of fully "equal protection of the laws."
As we devote time to teaching people about the Declaration and our democratic institutions, why not teach people the truth about our Constitution so that our young people grow up understanding of the truth about our equality and liberty and the Constitution that secures them.
Is it a good thing to teach young people to have mere blind faith that we truly have a democracy? Isn't that the opposite of enlightenment? Isn't that the opposite of the reason that the Declaration highlights the importance of truths that are self-evident? Isn't it better to teach Americans how to read our Constitution to see for themselves who "We the People" truly are and what form of government we truly have and how it truly governs our public servants?
We have a republic. Our Constitution and federal law (e.g., 4 U.S.C. Section 4 (the Pledge of Allegiance)) say so explicitly. At least as important, our republican form of government is a fact that can be proved with the text of our Constitution. A democracy means mere rule by a mere majority of voters. That's clearly not our form of government. No national majority has the power to choose any national leader or make any national law.
We also can and should be able to see and show how our Constitution secures the equality under the law of all citizens (male or female) and all persons (male or female).
What a great quote from Colfax! I agree that real grasp of what it means to have “founding documents” can be really powerful, and deserves to be more prominent in civic education
Danielle Allen is doing great work in this field. She has helped start programs to revive emphasis on: debate, civility, critical thinking skills in schools.
Many young folks have trouble reading. They are not equipped to listen and evaluate then debate issues using logical arguments that may refute their opponents, yet respect the rights of all those expressing opinions.
Thank you for your thoughts on this topic. Your description of 'listening schools' really resonated, as I have been very interested in democratic / self directed education lately. I actually wrote an article touching on this topic recently. Would be very curious to hear your perspective on it. Hope you don't mind me attaching a link here: https://samuelkammin.substack.com/p/the-upper-limit-hypothesis-and-the
Thanks for sharing! There's a lot to like about that model - Dewey, Freire, Montessori, so many educational thinkers have criticized overly structured formal education for blocking the way people naturally learn. And civic learning is often most powerful when it's experiential and self-directed, e.g. project-based learning. But I'm skeptical of the idea that formal education has reached any sort of upper limit for that reason too, when there's so much more to be done to support inquiry-based learning and equity in achievement.
What an excellent project. Thanks for sharing and helping to remind me that learning and listening are interweaved.
Really fantastic (and serendipitous) that this was published the very same day we release our interview with two wonderful young people who had taken part in citizens' assemblies in their communities. https://demnext.substack.com/p/children-and-young-peoples-assemblies
So great to read this, thank you for sharing!
I just completed a book for 16 & 17 year olds designed to prepare them for voting and their role as citizens. I also created a teacher edition. Both are now available on Kindle. The title is, “A Student Guide To Truth, Democracy and Civic Responsibility”. I would be glad to send a complimentary PDF of the Teacher Edition to any educator who is interested.
You asked, "What would you change, or what would you have tried to change, in your school?"
I wish that in high school (or at least in college) I had learned the truth about at least the highlights of our Constitution. A college student I knew wrote a thoughtful, insightful paper for a college class, and we both thought his paper should have earned him an A. It earned him only a B. I learned that the reason was that he repeatedly said the U.S. was a "democracy" instead of a "republic." Even after learning that fact, I had no idea what the big deal was. All my life, I had heard "democracy," not "republic." Apparently, the difference between a democracy and a republic had been taught in that class. But I never took that class.
Throughout all the years of my formal education I never was taught and I never thought that we don't live in a democracy. Until law school, I never was taught and I never thought about the Constitution establishing "the supreme Law of the Land." I never was taught and I never thought about how to see or show that the Constitution was the paramount law of the land.
I never was taught and I never thought about even the fact that our Constitution expressly and specifically requires the U.S. government to "guarantee" a "Republican Form of Government." So of course, I never was taught and I never thought about why. As a child, many times I said the Pledge of Allegiance. But I never was really taught and I never really thought about even the fact that the pledge was to our "Republic" which was "indivisible" and secured "liberty and justice for all." So naturally, I never was taught or thought about why or how our Republic was indivisible or how or why it secured liberty and justice for all.
In a way that now seems not only odd but even very sadly deficient to me, I was taught and so I thought about the fact that the Declaration of Independence declared that "all Men are created equal" and "all Men" had "unalienable Rights," including the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." I wasn't taught and I never thought about how those priceless thoughts in the 1776 Declaration influenced our Constitution and eventually were incorporated into our Constitution.
Much later in life I learned that in 1866, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Schuyler Colfax, declared that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was “the gem of the Constitution . . . because it is the Declaration of Independence placed immutably and forever in our Constitution.” How is that not common knowledge among all Americans?
It is a true shame that the foregoing truth about the Fourteenth Amendment seems to be unknown even to justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. The current SCOTUS Chief Justice in his 2025 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary (https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2025year-endreport.pdf) chose to focus on both the Declaration and the Constitution. His words showed that he failed to see (or he didn't want us to see) the self-evident truth declared by Speaker Colfax 160 years ago.
First, the Chief Justice misrepresented that "the Declaration consists of [mere] 'aspirations' and 'philosophizing' that do not lend themselves well to prescription or enforcement." That assurance was belied (as Speaker Colfax emphasized) by at least the 14th Amendment (as well as by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments). The point of all those amendments was precisely and obviously to emphasize equality.
Second, the Chief Justice emphasized, "For a 'practical and pragmatic charter of government,' Americans must turn to the Constitution."
Third, he acknowledged that "the concrete provisions of the 1787 Constitution fell short of honoring the abstract principles set forth in the 1776 Declaration—most notably, in regard to the Declaration’s promise of liberty and equality."
Fourth, the Chief Justice misrepresented that "Perhaps the finest explanation for the Declaration’s continuing influence comes from one of our greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln. Speaking shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its infamous decision in the Dred Scott case."
That final falsehood may be one of the worst ever by this Chief Justice. The decision and opinions of SCOTUS justices in Dred Scott were published in 1857. Precisely and promptly to overrule the SCOTUS majority regarding Dred Scott, our Constitution was amended profoundly--repeatedly. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were proposed by Congress and ratified especially to demolish (immutably and forever) SCOTUS's Dred Scott decision and supporting opinions. Speaker Colfax was correct--160 years ago--when he publicly emphasized that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was “the gem of the Constitution . . . because it is the Declaration of Independence placed immutably and forever in our Constitution.”
There's another facet of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment that is at least as important to the brilliance of that gem of our Constitution. The Declaration said "Men," so we tend to think of "men." To this day, much ink and breath are wasted discussing the meaning of "Men" in the Declaration. Why bother? Chief Justice Roberts (quoting Justice Scalia) was right about one thing, above: "For a 'practical and pragmatic charter of government,' Americans must turn to the Constitution."
Not once does our Constitution use the word "men." The first words of our Constitution are "We the People of the United States." Even more clear and explicit, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment expressly made "Men" in the Declaration irrelevant. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment emphatically begins with the words "All persons" (male or female) "born or naturalized in the United States" and emphasizes that we all "are citizens of the United States." It emphatically secures "the privileges or immunities of citizens" (male and female) "of the United States" and emphasizes that no State may "deprive any person" (male or female) "of life, [any] liberty, or [any] property, without" all "process of law" that is "due" or "deny to any person" (male or female) of fully "equal protection of the laws."
As we devote time to teaching people about the Declaration and our democratic institutions, why not teach people the truth about our Constitution so that our young people grow up understanding of the truth about our equality and liberty and the Constitution that secures them.
Is it a good thing to teach young people to have mere blind faith that we truly have a democracy? Isn't that the opposite of enlightenment? Isn't that the opposite of the reason that the Declaration highlights the importance of truths that are self-evident? Isn't it better to teach Americans how to read our Constitution to see for themselves who "We the People" truly are and what form of government we truly have and how it truly governs our public servants?
We have a republic. Our Constitution and federal law (e.g., 4 U.S.C. Section 4 (the Pledge of Allegiance)) say so explicitly. At least as important, our republican form of government is a fact that can be proved with the text of our Constitution. A democracy means mere rule by a mere majority of voters. That's clearly not our form of government. No national majority has the power to choose any national leader or make any national law.
We also can and should be able to see and show how our Constitution secures the equality under the law of all citizens (male or female) and all persons (male or female).
What a great quote from Colfax! I agree that real grasp of what it means to have “founding documents” can be really powerful, and deserves to be more prominent in civic education
Danielle Allen is doing great work in this field. She has helped start programs to revive emphasis on: debate, civility, critical thinking skills in schools.
Many young folks have trouble reading. They are not equipped to listen and evaluate then debate issues using logical arguments that may refute their opponents, yet respect the rights of all those expressing opinions.
Unfortunately India is suppressing such voices! Schools are just run like factories.
Thank you for your thoughts on this topic. Your description of 'listening schools' really resonated, as I have been very interested in democratic / self directed education lately. I actually wrote an article touching on this topic recently. Would be very curious to hear your perspective on it. Hope you don't mind me attaching a link here: https://samuelkammin.substack.com/p/the-upper-limit-hypothesis-and-the
Thanks for sharing! There's a lot to like about that model - Dewey, Freire, Montessori, so many educational thinkers have criticized overly structured formal education for blocking the way people naturally learn. And civic learning is often most powerful when it's experiential and self-directed, e.g. project-based learning. But I'm skeptical of the idea that formal education has reached any sort of upper limit for that reason too, when there's so much more to be done to support inquiry-based learning and equity in achievement.
I love these kids! What they're doing is so vastly different from the talked-at model of teaching