Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Why Constitution Day Should Spark a Movement for a New Convention in 2037

With democracy under strain, a growing movement sees 2037 as the moment to reimagine self-government.

Opinion

Protest sign, We the people.
Protests have been sparked across the country over the last few weeks.
Gene Gallin on Unsplash

Sept. 17 marked Constitution Day, grounded in a federal law commemorating the signing of the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787. As explained by the courts of Maryland, “By law, all educational institutions receiving federal funding must observe Constitution Day. It is an opportunity to celebrate and discuss our Constitution and system of government.”

This week also marked the release of an important new book by the historian Jill Lepore: “We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution” (as reviewed in the New York Times in a public link). Here’s an overview of her conclusions from the publisher:


Challenging both the Supreme Court’s monopoly on constitutional interpretation and the flawed theory of “originalism,” Lepore contends in this “gripping and unfamiliar story of our own past” that the philosophy of amendment is foundational to American constitutionalism. The framers never intended for the Constitution to be preserved, like a butterfly, under glass, Lepore argues, but expected that future generations would be forever tinkering with it, hoping to mend America by amending its Constitution through an orderly, deliberative, and democratic process.

Lepore’s remarkable history seeks, too, to rekindle a sense of constitutional possibility. Congressman Jamie Raskin writes that Lepore “has thrown us a lifeline, a way of seeing the Constitution neither as an authoritarian straitjacket nor a foolproof magic amulet but as the arena of fierce, logical, passionate, and often deadly struggle for a more perfect union.” At a time when the Constitution’s vulnerability is all too evident, and the risk of political violence all too real, We the People, with its shimmering prose and pioneering research, hints at the prospects for a better constitutional future, an amended America.

But, far from Thomas Jefferson’s vision that Americans should come together every generation to forge a new constitution, we rarely come close to even modest amendments. With the powerful movement for “originalism” further limiting the evolution of our Constitution through Supreme Court interpretation, our difficulty in amending the Constitution creates even greater challenges for a 21st-century superpower.

Writing this week in the New York Times, Lepore highlighted our history with state constitutional change:

Since 1776, the states have held nearly 250 constitutional conventions and adopted 144 constitutions, or about three per state. Every state constitution in place has an amendment provision. Since 1789, of more than 10,000 proposed amendments to state constitutions submitted to voters, nearly 7,000—well more than two out of three—have been ratified. But Americans have stopped holding conventions. No state has held a full-dress constitutional convention since 1986. No movement to call for a second federal convention has ever succeeded, and none is currently likely to.

Lepore then suggests that perhaps we could break free of our fears by focusing a constitutional convention solely on the implications of artificial intelligence. Others, for years, have organized efforts to get states to pass applications calling for a federal constitutional convention under Article V, where applications from 34 states would trigger a convention. Indeed, 49 states over time have passed such applications, including recent efforts associated with calls to consider term limits and a balanced budget requirement.

For actions starting in Congress, the most popular change might be to establish upper bound age limits for service in federal office in tandem with the power bounds established for service in the House (25 years old), Senate (30), and presidency (35)–Richard Albert this week in the Fulcrum highlights how 76% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans support an upper age limit for federal office. American Promise has conducted effective state organizing in support of a constitutional amendment to allow states to regulate and limit the influence of money in politics, which a recent poll found has earned supermajority support from both Republicans and Democrats.

Over my three decades as a democracy reform leader, I’ve focused on ambitious statutory change more than constitutional change, bound by pessimism about constitutional change in the modern era. But as I observe plans to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence next year, I see value in a bold suggestion: Rather than fear that a constitutional convention would “go rogue,” what if we collectively embraced Jefferson's vision to think big again with an embrace of holding a new convention? But accepting it would take time to prepare for such a convention through citizen engagement, study, and education. What if we planned to start the constitutional convention on Sept. 17, 2037, the 250th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution?

Many fear that such a convention might roll back our rights. But they too easily dismiss the fact that no constitutional provision will become law without three-quarters of our state legislatures—that means 38 out of 50—approving the change. They also overlook that it is deeply dangerous when the Constitution becomes a straitjacket that weakens consent of the governed, rather than embracing government of, by, and for the people.

As we get ready to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, let’s consider using that anniversary as a launch for a drive for Congress and states to act toward federal and state conventions in 2037. It indeed may be revolutionary to believe that Americans remain up to the challenge of self-government, but that is one true test of an enduring democracy.

This piece was featured in the Expand Democracy 3, a weekly briefing on breakthrough reforms and promising practices to promote a healthy democracy. Here is a link to the Expand Democracy newsletter archive

Rob Richie is the president of Expand Democracy and a FairVote co-founder and senior advisor.

Read More

America’s Long History of Political Violence—and Why We Can’t Ignore It Now

Political violence has deep roots in American history. From 1968 to today, Jeanne Sheehan Zaino explore why violence remains a force for change in U.S. society.

Getty Images, B.S.P.I.

America’s Long History of Political Violence—and Why We Can’t Ignore It Now

In 1968, amid riots and assassinations, a magazine asked leading intellectuals why America was so violent. Among the responses was one that stood out—H. Rap Brown’s now-infamous line: “Violence is as American as cherry pie.”

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz dismissed the phrase as a cliché. But sociologist St. Clair Drake took it seriously. “However repulsive and shocking,” Drake wrote, Brown was “telling it like it is.” Americans, he said, must face the fact that their society is, by global standards, a very violent one.

Keep ReadingShow less

Political Violence Escalates: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination and the Fragility of Democracy

The appalling assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk while speaking at Utah Valley University marks another escalation in the dangerous normalization of political violence in the U.S. The murder of such a high-profile political figure underscores the fragility of democracy when disagreement is expressed not through debate or ballots but through the barrel of a gun. The tragedy must be understood as part of a broader pattern of radicalization, identity threat, and inadequate safeguards for candidates and elected officials.

After the assassination of a state legislator in Minnesota, we published an analysis on the psychological roots of political violence. That piece examined how violence is often driven more by deep psychological insecurity than by ideology, which political psychologists refer to as “defensive extremism.” Individuals who feel excluded, humiliated, or stripped of control can come to see violence as the only way to regain significance. This is especially true in contexts of rapid change, social isolation, or echo chambers that amplify grievances. As research indicates, the majority of violent acts are expressive rather than strategic eruptions of anger and fear, which are framed as moral or political necessities.

Keep ReadingShow less
For Whom the Bell Tolls: What Political Violence Reveals About Us

The bell tower from Mission Concepcion in San Antonio, Texas.

Getty Images, Gabriel Perez

For Whom the Bell Tolls: What Political Violence Reveals About Us

“Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the bell tolls for thee.”

The English poet, John Donne, wrote those words in the early 17th century, when it was customary for villagers to announce their fellow inhabitants’ deaths by the tolling of a single church bell.

Keep ReadingShow less
People looking at a TV screen, live broadcasting China's Victory Day military parade from Beijing on September 3, 2025 in Chongqing, China.

Elderly residents gather at a local civil affairs service center to watch the live broadcast of China's Victory Day military parade from Beijing on September 3, 2025 in Chongqing, China. The parade, commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, featured Chinese President Xi Jinping addressing the nation and reviewing troops and military equipment at Tiananmen Square

Getty Images, Cheng Xin

A New World Order Isn’t Coming, It’s Already Here − and This Is What It Looks Like

On Sept. 3, 2025, China celebrated the 80th anniversary of its victory over Japan by staging a carefully choreographed event in which 26 world leaders were offered a podium view of Beijing’s impressive military might.

The show of strength was deliberate and reignited a debate in Western mediaover whether we are on the cusp of a China-centric “new world order” to replace the U.S.-dominated international “rules-based order.”

Keep ReadingShow less