Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Imagining constitutions

A Republic, if we can keep it: Part XXX

U.S. Constitution
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is the latest in “ A Republic, if we can keep it,” a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

America’s Constitution is always under the microscope, but something different is happening of late: The document’s sanctity is being questioned.


In the pages of The New York Times, Jennifer Szalai recently asked whether the Constitution is “ dangerous.” Erwin Chemerinsky similarly wonders whether the Constitution is actually a threat to the United States. Ryan Doerfler and Samuel Moyn question whether the “broken” Constitution should even be reclaimed. These questions would scarcely be uttered a generation ago. Today, they’re typical.

As disturbing as alarm over America’s holy charter may be, what is exciting is the way in which critics are responding. Constitutional skeptics have begun to take matters into their own hands and have offered their own versions of a 21st century charter. Leading writers and legal scholars were recently asked to imagine the next constitutional amendment. Before that, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas gathered a bunch of academics to draft a more progressive Constitution for our times, while the National Constitution Center did the same thing with separate teams of liberals, conservatives and libertarians. Hashtags for imaginary draft constitutions are trending.

Those interesting and laudable efforts are the very definition of creativity. Fictional Framers are being asked to create new constitutions for the 21st century, ones that respond to the hyper-polarization of the moment. The drafters of these invented texts are no doubt influenced by the Trump presidency, the “woke” culture, political tribalism, the pandemic, regional distinctions, and on and on. Unsurprisingly, the progressive drafters emphasize rights, while the conservatives focus on the side of federalism and state power. The libertarians, in contrast, try to reduce government’s imprint while championing individual freedom. In the end, the dialogue is both fascinating and enlightening.

It is also distinctly American.

The United States should be proud of its tradition as a constitutional innovator. Political entrepreneurs were born alongside the new nation. John Dickinson, the primary author of the Articles of Confederation, was a dreamer. So was James Madison, and James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris, and Alexander Hamilton, and all their colleagues who huddled under a hot Philadelphia sun in 1787 to craft a fresh legal charter. Similarly, state constitutional drafters number in the thousands. State leaders have assembled more than 160 times in American history to rewrite their fundamental documents.

These individuals shared an admirable audaciousness. What they also shared was a fervent commitment to see the constitution-making project through. Each was able to translate their vision for a “more perfect union” into an actual, tangible and eventually ratified constitution. They were critics of the political order they saw outside their windows, and they did something about it.

There are similar constitutional dreamers among us today. Hundreds of them. And yet there is little appetite to take their promising ideas and turn them into a new Constitution. The question is why. I would point to at least six different reasons.

  1. The fear of a runaway convention: There is concern that every clause, safeguard and protection in the Constitution would be fair game for revision.
  2. The polarization of America: There is concern that liberals and conservatives could never agree on any reforms to the Constitution.
  3. The challenge of representation: How do we decide who should be at the drafting convention and who should not?
  4. America is not really in crisis: Constitutions are generally born out of crises (civil wars, coups, economic disasters, etc.). We are experiencing political malaise right now, but not a genuine crisis.
  5. The sacred Constitution: For millions of Americans, the Constitution is still sacred. Flawed? Sure. But not irredeemable.

There are more reasons, of course. But these are the main sticking points, and they appear to be intractable. Calls for a constitutional convention — a return to Philadelphia of sorts — pop up fairly often. We should welcome them. Conversation about political improvement begets further conversation. Indeed, it is a demonstration of the strength of our constitutional republic that Americans are encouraged to interrogate the nation’s first principles.

Attempts to rewrite the Constitution are inevitably speculative — hypothetical, academic, abstract — mostly because few believe we’ll soon invoke an Article V constitutional convention. That should not diminish the importance of these imaginary efforts, however, or of the more conventional creative approaches to thinking about our current political and social problems. The U.S. Constitution is the most innovative political invention in the post-Enlightenment age. The way we talk about it should be equally creative.

Read More

Adoption in America Is Declining—The Need Isn’t
man and woman holding hands
Photo by Austin Lowman on Unsplash

Adoption in America Is Declining—The Need Isn’t

Two weeks ago, more than 50 kids gathered at Busch Gardens in Tampa, Florida, not for the roller coasters or the holiday decorations, but to be legally united with their “forever” families.

Events like this happened across the country in November in celebration of National Adoption Month. When President Bill Clinton established the observance in 1995 to celebrate and encourage adoption as “a means for building and strengthening families,” he noted that “much work remains to be done.” Thirty years later, that work has only grown.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adoption in America Is Declining—The Need Isn’t
man and woman holding hands
Photo by Austin Lowman on Unsplash

Adoption in America Is Declining—The Need Isn’t

Two weeks ago, more than 50 kids gathered at Busch Gardens in Tampa, Florida, not for the roller coasters or the holiday decorations, but to be legally united with their “forever” families.

Events like this happened across the country in November in celebration of National Adoption Month. When President Bill Clinton established the observance in 1995 to celebrate and encourage adoption as “a means for building and strengthening families,” he noted that “much work remains to be done.” Thirty years later, that work has only grown.

Keep ReadingShow less
The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

a view of the capitol building

The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

In November, eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in history, with little to show for the 43-day closure.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who was not one of the eight, told discouraged Democrats, “We need to remember the battle we’re in….[We need to continue the fight] to defend our country from Trump and MAGA. Two things coming up that are really important,” Whitehouse said, “1) In December, there will be a vote on extending the Affordable Care credits we fought for. That gives us…weeks to hammer the Republicans so hard that we actually get a good Affordable Care credits bill.

Keep ReadingShow less
Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?
Image generated by IVN staff.

Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?

Politico published a story last week under the headline “Poll: Americans don’t just tolerate gerrymandering — they back it.”

Still, a close review of the data shows the poll does not support that conclusion. The poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer either an independent redistricting process or a voter-approved process — not partisan map-drawing without voter approval. This is the exact opposite of the narrative Politico’s headline and article promoted. The numbers Politico relied on to justify its headline came only from a subset of partisans.

Keep ReadingShow less