To Amend or Not? Princetonians Weigh In On the U.S. Constitution

PAW asked constitutional scholars what changes they would make

iStock

Placeholder author icon
By Ramie Fathy ’16 and Ramzie Fathy ’20

Published Sept. 17, 2021

8 min read

What amendment would you make to the U.S. Constitution? For this year’s Constitution Day, Sept. 17, PAW asked Princeton alumni and professors who are constitutional scholars to weigh in. Their responses below reflect a moment in our nation with broader implications for the balance of powers and how we can and should move forward.

But you don’t need to be an expert to have an opinion. What would you suggest? Send your thoughts to paw@princeton.edu — responses may be published in PAW.


Keith Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University

There are certainly many amendment possibilities that would make sense, and some are more pressing than others, but let me just point to Article V. Article V lays out the procedure for amending the Constitution itself, and it was designed to avoid the kind of problems that eventually brought down the Articles of Confederation. The Articles required the unanimous agreement of the states to amend, and critical amendments proved impossible in the face of a small number of holdouts. The Constitution allowed for the possibility of a large majority of states overruling a small minority in order to make necessary constitutional changes, but it probably did not go far enough. 

There are many fine balancing acts that are needed in constitutional design, and one of those involves creating procedures for constitutional change. We should want a process that is not so easy that it is possible for transitory and narrow majorities to make fundamental changes in the basic law of the political system, but we should also want a process that is workable and does not incentivize reformers to look for workarounds that avoid formal constitutional change. Experience suggests that the founders set the bar to amendment too high. Other democratic constitutional systems have developed procedurally easier amendment systems, and it is possible to lower the procedural hurdles that Article V creates while retaining the stability, deliberativeness, and supermajoritarian qualities that Article V was aspiring to establish. 


Kim Lane Scheppele, Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs, Princeton University

The most important amendment is to amend the amendment rule so that amending the Constitution is an available route for political discontent with Supreme Court decisions. 

Scheppele pointed to her testimony on this subject for the Supreme Court commission, which includes the following:

 [You] might consider why there has been such clamor for changing the Court at this moment. I would submit that a very powerful Supreme Court with the power to nullify laws for unconstitutionality combined with a nearly- impossible-to-amend Constitution produces impossible pressures on the Court, pressures that push the institution to the breaking point with increases in political polarization. If the Supreme Court makes high-stakes decisions because that is its job, and if political supermajorities have nowhere to turn within the democratic system to alter Court decisions that they believe are wrongly decided, their only recourse is to put pressure the Court itself so that it will reverse its own rulings. This dynamic, intensified over decades in the United States, has severely strained the judicial nomination and confirmation process because the most obvious way to change the decisions of the Court is to change the judges who make them…

How can this pressure be lessened? Looking across comparative cases, I suggest that there are two ways that involve changing other parts of the constitutional system even more than changing the Court itself: 

a) making the Constitution easier to amend so that there is an available super-majoritarian route to alter unpopular judicial decisions through democratic means or 

b) providing checks and balances on the Supreme Court by adopting a version of what has been called the “Commonwealth model” or “weak-form judicial review” in which court decisions may be overridden, either temporarily or permanently, by the democratically accountable branches of government.


Ilya Shapiro ’99, vice president and director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute

Last year I participated in a National Constitution Center project that had teams of legal scholars answering this exact question. I led Team Libertarian, and we joked that, because the Constitution is already a classical liberal document, all we needed to do was to add “and we mean it” to the end of every clause. After all, the Constitution set out a government of limited and enumerated powers, powers that are divided both “horizontally” among the three branches of the federal government and “vertically” in a federalist system that recognizes, while limiting, the sovereignty of states, in order to protect “the blessings of liberty.” 

That original structure provided a mechanism to preserve the full range of individual liberties because it largely withheld from government the power to violate them. The Reconstruction Amendments further advanced that project by extending the Constitution’s guarantees to protect against state violation, including eradicating slavery, the single greatest contradiction to the ethos of the American experiment. Unfortunately, many parts of our fundamentally libertarian Constitution, particularly those that limit federal power, have been ignored or cleverly evaded, especially by court decisions that perverted the actual meaning of the document’s text. 

So while 230 years of experience have demonstrated certain deficiencies and room for updating, the primary thing I’d do would be to clarify and sharpen those provisions that define and restrain federal authority — most notably the Commerce Clause, which has been transformed into a charter of virtually limitless power.


Sarah Seo ’02, professor at Columbia Law School

Rather than amending the Constitution, I would undo nearly 100 years of case law that have watered down the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. In 1925, the Supreme Court held in Carroll v. United States that the police do not need a warrant to stop and search a car that they believe contains contraband. Ever since then, courts have interpreted the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against “unreasonable searches and seizures” by deferring to law enforcement’s understanding of what is reasonable. 

In 1968, the Court held in Terry v. Ohio — by citing Carroll — that the police did not need probable cause, but only reasonable suspicion, of a crime or danger in order to conduct certain searches and seizures called “stop and frisks.” By 1995, a bestselling law enforcement textbook actually encouraged patrol officers to “know search-and-seizure laws inside-out because they are your tools.” But the Fourth Amendment was intended to be the people’s tools to shield their privacy from the government. To reclaim its guarantees, I would go back to the common-law understanding of reasonableness: Searches and seizures require a warrant, with very few exceptions for exigent circumstances, which would still require probable cause that a crime has been committed. 


Phillip C. Bobbitt ’71, Herbert Wechsler Professor of Federal Jurisprudence, Columbia Law School

There is no amendment at this time — in this deeply polarized political environment — that I would propose. Our first duty is to protect the integrity and stature of our embattled democratic institutions — including the courts — and a campaign for ratification of any new amendment is unlikely to do that. Indeed, given the demographic swings of the last few decades, such a campaign might well result in a minority of the population ratifying an amendment even though ¾ of the states must vote to ratify.


Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, Princeton University

The first word of the first (and only) sentence of the first article of the Constitution of the United States is the word “all”:  “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” If I could amend the Constitution, I would add a single sentence, consisting of three words, immediately following it: “All means all.” In other words, I would not change the meaning of the Constitution. Rather, I would reinforce it — and demand that public officials in all three branches of the federal government begin respecting and honoring it.

Why is such reinforcement needed? For the simple reason that, over time, more and more legislative authority has been abdicated by the legislative branch — the Congress — to the executive and judicial branches — or seized by them. The laws — the rules — under which Americans live are, in violation of the Constitution, too often made by presidents and other executive officers and by judges. The Constitution does not divide up legislative powers and allocate them across the three branches of government; it vests all legislative powers granted to the United States in the Congress. What is it about the word “all” that’s so hard for presidents and judges — and members of Congress themselves — to understand?

Evidently, however, they don’t understand it. Who today can with a straight face say that all — or anything approaching all — legislative power is exercised by the Congress? Who can deny that Congress has given away an enormous amount of legislative authority and that the executive and judicial branches have significantly usurped the power “vested in Congress”? It’s time for we the people to demand that legislators do their job, namely, legislate. And it’s time to demand that presidents do their jobs — i.e. taking care that the laws are faithfully executed, and judges do their jobs, resolving disputes by faithfully applying laws they themselves did not, and do not, make.

The root of the problem, I believe, is that partisanship overwhelms fidelity to constitutional principle. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, tend to accept — even endorse — the usurpation of legislative power by the other branches when it serves their partisan and ideological interests. They only complain when it’s their opponents doing it. The complaints are hollow because they are hypocritical. So the beat goes on, and each incursion by, say, the Democrats is used to justify the incursion after that by the Republicans. So the authority of Congress continues to erode, as legislative power is siphoned off by the executive and the judicial branches.

11 Responses

George Coyne ’61

2 Years Ago

I have been intrigued by the recent activity aimed at normalizing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as if it is outdated and must be amended from time to time.  People seem to have forgotten the most basic principle that has made America the preeminent power in the world. For those who seem to have forgotten, that principle is the preservation, within the law, of the freedom and initiative of every individual citizen.

 

This principle underlies the genius of the founders and the Constitution they created. The founders were diligent students of history and they understood that the decline of every powerful nation comes from the overwhelming accumulation of power at the top of a centralized bureaucracy, with the commensurate loss of control at the local and individual-citizen level. No one person or group of people at the top can efficiently control an entire population. This guidance unleashed the initial era of American creativity, invention, and innovation, and was instrumental in the growth and power of America for 150 years.

 

This allocation of control down to the lowest possible level has been gradually eroded ever since the early 20th century, beginning with the administrations of Woodrow Wilson (generally recognized as the original “Progressive”) and FDR. And in the 21st century, the political collusion between the FBI, the CIA, and the Obama administration to slander then candidate Trump with known false Russian collusion claims further centralized federal power and control.

 

But the most recent and perhaps the most egregious and obvious violation of the Constitution has been done by the Justice Department in the person of Attorney General Merrick Garland. He has threatened with FBI investigation parent citizens attending local school board meetings who are in conflict with school board members over the injection of Critical Race Theory (CRT) into curricula. This is certainly an issue that can and should be handled by local authorities if necessary. It seems obvious that there is an agenda being pushed and most blatantly, the FBI and the Justice department have been politicized. The intimidation is palpable. It has been revealed that Garland’s son-in-law, Xan Tanner, is the co-founder of Panorama Education, an organization which specializes in the creation of material for school systems, including CRT material. This whole episode is clearly a violation of the 10th amendment as well as a disgraceful conflict of interest.

 

The solution? Many more citizens should begin to understand that within the Constitution lies the source of America’s strength America’s virtue and America’s freedom.

Lisa Maddox McCurdy ’78

2 Years Ago

In your October issue, you solicited opinions on what amendment should be added to the Constitution.

The 28th Amendment to the Constitution should be the Equal Rights Amendment. 

The U.S. is not a democracy until the ERA is part of the Constitution.  

Tom Tonon *71

3 Years Ago

I suggest a Constitutional amendment to restrict all campaign contributions made to political candidates to be made only by human individuals of voting status, with an across-the-board maximum per individual per candidate per campaign. The maximum is to be determined by Congress and affordable to most all voters, with public funds given to those that can’t afford it. Federal, state, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

The language of the above suggestion is not meant to be the wording of the actual amendment, but rather a simple description of the intention behind such an amendment. For instance, proper language would be required to describe just how Congress is to determine the across-the-board maximum.

There is currently a similar proposal in Bill H.J.Res.48, sponsored by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., (introduced May 20, 2021), although the language there is not so clear, nor as directly stated as in the above suggestion. 

There is more than one way to state an acceptable amendment, all having the same intention.  For instance, the amendment could be stated to outlaw all private contributions to campaigns and allow only public funds that are disseminated by individual humans, again with an across-the-board maximum. 

In my view, such an amendment would be the largest, most effective single step to eliminate most of the corruption that results with the present money system. It will not eliminate all monies involved with political function. For instance, insider trading.

We often hear pleas by political leaders for “campaign finance reform,” but such pleas are primarily political actions taken to convince constituents that the acting politician is sincere, without real and effective action. The consequences of such token efforts are usually to complicate and add hundreds of pages to campaign-law books, often providing many loopholes. 

In my view, without such a simple and clearly stated amendment, the Constitution is deeply flawed. 

Howard MacAyeal ’52

3 Years Ago

A democracy masquerading as a republic, or is it the other way around? Either way, we need to get rid of the electoral college. We need to adjust the number of senators elected from each state — call it the “Dakota” rule. And we need to reexamine the question of whether the Constitution creates a Christian nation. (Apparently the founders thought not, and left us with an atheist nation with weak-kneed assurances of religious freedom.)

My people came from County Antrim and settled in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. They were described as people of tough fiber and strong convictions. “We the People” have turned out to be neither, except for the bully-boy Republicans who consider insurrection the be tough fiber, and Evangelicals who think hatred of abortion is strong conviction.

Harold Scott Gurvey ’73

2 Years Ago

The original Constitution’s provisions which violate the principle of one citizen, one vote need to be changed. Eliminate the Electoral College and have each state certify the total vote count for president in their election by a certain date. The problem of the Senate is more difficult to address. We could allocate seats in the Senate based on population. But if there is merit to the idea of equal representation there must be a way to prevent the Senate from blocking the will of the majority, perhaps by allowing a supermajority of the House to override the Senate, or at least preventing the Senate from denying a vote on legislation sent over by the House.

Rick Mott ’73

2 Years Ago

If we want to continue to call the country the United States of America, then the careful balance between large and small states designed into the Senate and the Electoral College should be preserved. Yes, the smaller states have somewhat higher weight than their population warrants under pure democracy, but otherwise campaigns would simply ignore them and focus only on the coastal megacities.

The existing design was intended to prevent what Federalist 10 referred to as the tyranny of the majority. It is not perfect but has served us well enough for a couple of centuries. If it is to be modified, at a minimum such modification should be only by the amendment process built into the system, not an end-run like the so-called National Popular Vote Compact.

The fact that it’s hard to do is a feature, not a bug. It ensures only a sizeable supermajority can make fundamental changes. That’s also why I support the filibuster for legislation, if not for the “advise and consent” function.

Chris Heinemann

3 Years Ago

Thank you for the recent article regarding proposed amendments. All the viewpoints were well thought-out and apolitical. I’m no legal or history scholar.  I’m a systems architect, which is a fancy title for the “IT guy who sees the big picture.” This outsider view may negate my contribution, but I’ll share anyway in case you find it of interest.

I would alter the definitions of the court to require textualist interruptions of laws. Then, constitutionality and gray areas go to the defense/citizen. This shifts the burden of debate back to Congress as intended and eliminates the research about “what was meant” as they are limited to the literal words of the constitution.

I agree with [Professor Keith Whittington] that the bar is too high for amendment; something like 60 percent feels more appropriate.  

My real contribution is that everything government does needs to have built-in decay and easy review.  If we’ve learned anything, it is once enacted, government is “forever.” Only politically popular topics get discussed, leaving everything else as given. Invariably, these new topics are new programs. This leads to bloat as government only grows.

From a design standpoint, bloat is a sure sign of bad designs. Supporting it becomes exponentially expensive. Workarounds are tacked on to avoid other changes. Redundancy shows up everywhere, especially in rules. This sounds like the federal government. 

Good designs persist and get replicated; bad designs get evolved. Evolution requires death or adaptation. In order to find the things that should die or adapt, one has to go look for them. One has to compare expected to actual results. Congress (in its current form) will never take up the task of review, there are no headlines to be made there. So, let’s elect representation to do the review.

This new division of Congress would be elected right alongside the House but with a decidedly different purpose. With a 30 percent vote, any portion of any law is slated to expire at the end of the next Congress. Then in the next Congress, the (traditional) House can override the expiration, individually on a roll call vote with 75 percent. If they do not act or do not get the votes, the line or entire law is void. This gives huge power to this “House of Decay” but they can only take away and only after an entire Congress has elapsed.

Since they are elected to take away, they would make headlines by doing the mundane but important job of review.  

There are many other things I would do but they are all my personal political views and not truly structural.

Michael Otten ’63

3 Years Ago

While there are many meritorious proposals to amend the Constitution, some which seem vital, like the ERA, the two most dangerous areas requiring fixing relate to election law, which is threatening a constitutional crisis that would make Jan. 6 look like a tea party:

1. The 12th Amendment (1804) is worse than obsolete. It is the legal underpinning for President Donald Trump’s request for Vice President Mike Pence to override the states’ submitted electoral votes. In conjunction with the ambiguously worded Electoral Count Act of 1887, there is an increased likelihood that we’ll have a presidential election that declares a winner who has neither the popular vote majority nor the electoral vote majority. 

2. There needs to be an amendment that takes money (especially “dark money”) out of politics, basically overturning the Citizens United decision, which is based on a far-too-strongly reinforced jurisprudence idea that corporations are the same as individuals. The capability for money to “buy” elections through media and other mass advertising outlets was not an aspect of 18th-century life the way it is today.

Jay Squiers ’83

3 Years Ago

Impose strict term limits of two six-year terms for senators and five two-year terms for representatives. These should be lifetime limits, not just a limit on consecutive terms.

David McMillin

3 Years Ago

All these supposedly smart people, and no one (other than a perceptive commenter) says, “Let’s ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. It’s about time!”

Dennis Scheil *79

3 Years Ago

On Constitution Day, Sept. 17, PAW asked six constitutional scholars: How would you amend the U.S. Constitution? Readers also responded, sharing their views in comments posted with the online story. Read more at paw.princeton.edu.

What amendment would I make to the U.S. Constitution? Gee, that’s easy: the Equal Rights Amendment.

We don’t even need to do any work, since we already have the amendment and it has been ratified by the required 38 states already. We just need to resolve that pesky timing issue and get it done.

Join the conversation

Plain text

Full name and Princeton affiliation (if applicable) are required for all published comments. For more information, view our commenting policy. Responses are limited to 500 words for online and 250 words for print consideration.

Related News

Newsletters.
Get More From PAW In Your Inbox.

Learn More

Title complimentary graphics