As the U.S. prepares to mark the 250th anniversary of American independence, historian Jill Lepore says now is a good time to ask whether the public wants constitutional amendments. She calls the nation’s system of law “founded on what I think of as the philosophy of amendment,” the idea that written rules can and should be changed when necessary. State constitutions have long been amended — frequently by referendums on Election Day — but Lepore worries that the federal Constitution has been effectively frozen: it hasn’t been changed in any meaningful public way since 1971’s 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.
Lepore notes that written constitutions were first adopted in the American states in 1776 so that “we, their descendants, could change those rules.” She argues the public should consider whether it’s acceptable that the federal Constitution is now being altered primarily through Supreme Court decisions instead of by popular amendment. The 250th anniversary of the state constitutions, she says, is an excellent moment to revisit that question and to debate whether Americans prefer judicial reinterpretation or a renewed, participatory amendment process.