Amid the challenges facing American democracy, there’s a silver lining: a stress test that President Trump and his supporters are conducting on the Constitution. This situation is exposing vulnerabilities, inconsistencies, and loopholes that allow corruption, greed, and animosity to thrive within our Republic.
It’s essential to invigorate the Constitution; after all, it isn’t etched in stone.
According to historian Jill Lepore, the Constitution, established 236 years ago, has seen around 12,000 amendments presented, but only 27 have been ratified. The complexity of updating the document often leads people to rely on courts, legislatures, and the presidency to tackle contemporary issues related to rights and governance.
These governing bodies, however, are influenced by political leaders whose philosophies shift with each election. If the founders had believed that voters would consistently choose representatives loyal to the Constitution, they perhaps underestimated human nature. They left many provisions open to interpretation, leaving our essential rights resting on a fragile foundation.
As we approach the 250th anniversary of the United States, Congress could play a key role in fostering a national dialogue aimed at revitalizing the Constitution. A potential initial step could be making amendments easier to implement. For instance, the House and Senate might consider passing a 28th Amendment that allows them to propose future reforms based on a simple majority vote rather than the current two-thirds requirement. The ratification, however, would still need three-quarters of the states’ approval.
If the 28th Amendment moves forward, Congress is expected to hold public hearings where historians, constitutional experts, and advocacy groups discuss further reforms, including:
- Abolishing the Electoral College. This would enable popular votes to determine presidential election outcomes.
- Clarifying the rebellion clause. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment mandates support for the Constitution, disqualifying those who participate in or promote rebellion from office. Since Trump allegedly incited a rebellion in 2021 and later sought the presidency again in 2024, it raises questions about the applicability of this clause. If it applies, then it should be explicitly stated.
- Another issue is whether disqualification is automatic. The Supreme Court decided it isn’t, leaving enforcement to Congress. However, Congressional Republicans supported Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, which could be seen as a significant violation of the Rebellion Clause, yet 147 of them remain eligible for office.
- Historically, Congress has struggled to hold members accountable. In 250 years, the House has expelled only six members, while the Senate has expelled just 15. Should Section 3 clarify that disqualification relies on self-interpretation?
- Holding the President accountable to the law. Article 3, Section 3 requires the President to faithfully execute the law. Still, the Supreme Court has ruled that a sitting president cannot face prosecution for actions taken while in office. This could essentially give Trump permission to violate laws, curtail rights, and misuse the judicial system. Should the Constitution clarify that the President must adhere to the law just like everyone else?
- Restricting presidential pardons. Trump has granted controversial pardons to friends and associates, shielding them from legal repercussions, particularly for crimes committed in his service. Perhaps the Constitution should specify when pardons and commutations are appropriate.
- Prohibiting the President and family from exploiting the presidency for personal gain. Trump and his family reportedly amassed $3.5 billion during his presidency. A significant majority of Americans see the federal government as corrupt. Should the Constitution require Presidents and Vice Presidents to place their assets into blind trusts to prevent conflicts of interest?
- Implementing enforceable ethical standards. No existing body—be it the presidency, Congress, or the Supreme Court—currently has established or enforced ethical standards. The Constitution could mandate such standards.
- Reforming campaign finance. The Supreme Court declaration that campaign spending is a form of protected speech has effectively legalized bribery. Unlimited contributions have transformed elections into financial competitions rather than discussions of ideas. The cost of federal elections has surged dramatically. Legal caps on spending and contributions would not stifle free speech in today’s digital age. Perhaps the Constitution could accommodate necessary reforms.
- Instituting federal justice and judge term limits. Can the Constitution require that the President and Congress maintain a balanced ideological representation on the Supreme Court?
- Encouraging more direct democracy. National polls highlight a disconnect between what citizens want and what Congress delivers, indicating lawmakers often prioritize special interests over constituents. Some states allow voters to recall state officials—shouldn’t this be an option for Congress members as well? Should voters also have the authority to influence national legislation directly?
- Safeguarding voting rights. Should the Constitution mandate that states assign redistricting responsibilities to nonpartisan bodies? Should there be measures to ensure voter access is not restricted? And would making Election Day a national holiday enhance participation?
- Establishing a new protected right. The original authors of the Constitution likely did not foresee threats like AI, environmental crises, or nuclear conflict. A movement is emerging to recognize the rights of future generations and the environment. A dialogue is unfolding globally to secure these rights. Should the Constitution acknowledge them?
Ultimately, even a revised Constitution can’t protect the Republic if the populace isn’t fully committed to its values and rights. I find it hard to be certain of that commitment today. Polls show that trust in government is dwindling, and political scientists argue that this erosion fosters extremism and violence.
“One purpose of the Constitution was to halt change,” Lepore notes, “but the other was to facilitate change without resorting to violence. Amendments are a mechanism for preventing rebellion. It’s a profound reason indeed to work toward renewing the U.S. Constitution.”
