scripod.com

Is the U.S. Constitution too hard to change?

The U.S. Constitution, while enduring, is showing signs of strain under the weight of modern political challenges. Designed to balance stability with adaptability, it now faces a crisis of evolution—where formal amendments have stalled and change increasingly depends on judicial interpretation rather than democratic consensus.
The podcast explores how the U.S. Constitution’s difficulty in being amended has led to a reliance on courts and executive actions to drive change, undermining democratic accountability. Historian Jill Lepore traces this shift from foundational design to contemporary dysfunction, noting that only 17 meaningful amendments have passed since the Bill of Rights, with the last major one in 1971. The rise of originalism since the 1970s reflects a conservative strategy to control constitutional meaning through the judiciary, mirroring liberal tactics during the civil rights era. This judicial bypass of Article V has weakened public participation in shaping the Constitution. Meanwhile, cultural reverence for the founding document discourages revision, even as polarization and eroded norms reveal deep structural flaws. The result is a democracy struggling to reconcile its founding ideals with present-day realities, unable to achieve broad consensus on ethical or institutional reform despite widespread calls for change.
00:03
00:03
Modern unwillingness to amend the Constitution fuels polarization and executive overreach.
06:29
06:29
The term 'founding fathers' was coined in 1916 by Warren G. Harding during a period of constitutional veneration.
15:43
15:43
Amendment campaigns fail due to lack of grassroots organization and underestimation of opposition.
18:16
18:16
Originalism is a modern invention, not a founding-era practice
27:38
27:38
The country is not ready to amend the Constitution but needs to mend its ways and make amends.