Secret Schemes or Constituent Assembly

Luke Pickrell Engages Those Concerned About Right-Wing Attempts to Change The Constitution

Dec 19, 2023

Photo by David De Hart

I’ve talked with people in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) about the need for a democratic constitution. Most are open to the idea; it’s hard to engage in politics in the U.S. and not think about fundamental change. But not everything is smooth sailing. There’s a difference — perhaps most noticeable in the content of political agitation — between working for a socialist revolution to realize democracy or working for a democratic revolution to realize socialism. For a believer in the former, talking about the Constitution is a marginal issue and something to consider only after the revolution, if ever. For a believer in the latter, agitation around the Constitution as the obstacle to democracy is paramount and something to do here and now. The difference between these two theories of revolution and their related theories of political agitation is worth bringing to the surface in another article.

But for others, critiquing the Constitution and American ‘democracy’ is misguided at best and dangerous at worst. These folks claim that the Constitution is vulnerable and needs support and protection from the Far Right, not ire and mirth. To bolster their argument, they reference plans to overturn the Constitution and create a government even worse than what we have now. There’s an election on the horizon, and Joe Biden and Donald Trump are neck-and-neck in the polls. In times of uncertainty, do we ‘defend’ or ‘fight for’ democracy? We should expect more discussions about democracy in America and the nature of the Constitution. These issues will arise at a future debate hosted by the DSA’s National Political Education Committee (NPEC). I’ve stated my position in previous articles: the United States is not a democracy, and it must become a democracy in order for the working class majority to solve the country’s and the world’s most pressing issues. Here, I’ll take up the topic of conservative groups attempting to change the Constitution.

Last November, the American Constitution Society hosted an event about “the imminent threat of a constitutional convention,” during which author Nancy MacLean explained that “the Far Right is waging a dangerous, dark money campaign to force a constitutional convention that could radically rewrite the U.S. Constitution and severely hamper the federal government’s ability to address some of today’s most pressing problems.”¹ (MacLean failed to explain the federal government’s inability to address today’s most pressing problems under our current Constitution). In mid-December, Thom Hartmann published an article about a “secret GOP plot” to rewrite the Constitution by getting the Supreme Court to rule on old state resolutions calling for a convention. If the plan works, “these Republican toadies and the billionaires who fund and own them will rewrite our Constitution & state governors, the US Congress, and the President will have no say whatsoever…”² Hartmann, sounding like Joe Biden³, lamented the attack on “checks and balances” and cited Alexander Hamilton to explain the dangers of replacing the original Constitution with something new.⁴ Two years ago, Steven Corbin warned Americans about the Convention of States Action (COSA) and its plan to “persuade GOP-controlled state legislatures to call a constitution convention where far-right conservative values will become the law of the land.”⁵

For the sake of argument, I’ll assume that groups like COSA have a realistic shot at calling a constitutional convention. Given that only 27 out of nearly twelve thousand proposed measures have successfully navigated the amendment process, this is no small assumption.⁶ Today, 13 states representing as little as 4.4 percent of the population can block any constitutional reform.⁷No other country makes it this hard to amend the constitution.⁸ Norway’s Constitution, for example, was amended 316 times between 1814 and 2014, transforming it into “one of the most democratic countries on the earth.”⁹

MacLean, Hartmann, and Corbin don’t explain how to stop the Far Right. Without an explanation, one must assume that they recommend the same prescription that got us into this mess: support the Democratic Party and uphold the sacred commandments of the Constitution. In that case, I recommend a healthy dose of Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt.¹⁰ Like the trio listed above, Levitsky and Ziblatt think the Far Right threatens American democracy and believe reason and logic will persuade the Democratic Party to see the light. Unlike MacLean, Hartmann, and Corbin, Levitsky and Ziblatt understand how the Constitution facilitated the rise of the Far Right and how it continues to support Trump’s quest for a second electoral college victory. Despite crucial flaws, Levitsky and Ziblatt’s argument that “America’s excessively counter-majoritarian institutions reinforce extremism, empower authoritarian minorities, and threaten [to impose] minority rule”¹¹ is leagues ahead of those who would seek to use the Constitution against Trump (did they so quickly forget that he only ‘won’ in 2016 because of the Electoral College?). “We must double down on democracy,” explain Levitsky and Ziblatt: “This means dismantling spheres of undue minority protection and empowering majorities at all levels of government; it means ending constitutional protectionism and unleashing real political competition; it means bringing the balance of political power more closely in line with the balance of voter preferences; and it means forcing our politicians to be more responsive and accountable to majorities of American.”¹²

The Far Right represents a reactionary and violent strand in American politics. The question, however, is whether the Constitution can stop Donald Trump — let alone serve as a tool to create a democratic society. Then there’s the Democratic Party: it’s complicit in the rise of the Far Right because it refuses to pass progressive legislation (yes, checks and balances are partially to blame). If the Democratic Party wants to fight for democracy, it should fight for a democratic constitution (but I won’t hold my breath). The Constitution enables and empowers a minoritarian movement like MAGA through institutions like the Electoral College, the Supreme Court, and the Senate — bodies that, as in the Antebellum period, allow a minority to rule over a majority. The result is political gridlock, increasing inequality, the death of popular legislation like minimum wage increases, universal healthcare, and abortion access, and growing apathy and frustration.¹³

We must scrap the undemocratic Constitution and assist people in imagining a democratic alternative. We should talk to anyone and everyone about a constituent assembly elected by universal and equal suffrage as an alternative to the Far Rights’ scheming. We can ask people what they would include in a new constitution; after all, we never voted on the Framers’ creation, and most people alive in 1789 didn’t either. The best defense is a good offense, and we can’t afford to let fear limit the horizons of our imagination.

Luke Pickrell is a member of Marxist Unity Group, a caucus in Democratic Socialists of America. He is the lead writer and co-editor at the Democratic Constitution Blog. You can find more of his work at Cosmonautmag.com

The Democratic Constitution Blog

Discussion about this post