As the nation approaches the 250th anniversary of American independence, historian Jill Lepore urges a public conversation about constitutional change. She describes the country’s legal order as built on a “philosophy of amendment” — the conviction that written rules are meant to be revised when necessary — and says that the anniversary is a natural moment to ask whether Americans still want to amend their governing charter.
Lepore contrasts the routine modification of state constitutions, often accomplished through Election Day referendums, with what she sees as the federal Constitution’s effective freeze. The last major change produced by a popular amendment was the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered the voting age to 18. Since then, she argues, the Constitution has been changed primarily by Supreme Court decisions rather than through widespread public engagement.
She reminds readers that the first written constitutions adopted by the states in 1776 were intended to be living documents — created so future generations could alter the rules they inherited. Given that origin, Lepore thinks Americans should weigh whether they are comfortable letting judicial interpretation supplant a renewed, participatory amendment process. The 250th anniversary, she suggests, is an opportunity to reopen that debate and consider restoring amendment as a central democratic practice.