The Structural Reform of the Constitution Symposium

The future battles in American politics will likely not hinge on prosaic policy proposals but on attempts to redefine America’s constitutional structure and federal judiciary. Proposals from figures on the political left to abolish the Electoral College, add Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. as states, increase the number of Supreme Court justices (“packing the Court”), term-limit members of the Supreme Court, abolish the filibuster, and other notions increasingly figure in legislative attempts and campaign rhetoric. Abolishing the filibuster also now factors into the language of many MAGA conservatives in connection with the attempted passage of the SAVE Act.  

What seems to motivate all these measures is the desire for final triumph over one’s opponents, as if American self-government and the fierce debates that have animated it could now be settled, with either progressives or conservatives emerging as the terminal victors. Perhaps the most difficult course is to restrain majorities and live to fight another day, aware that American society is incredibly dynamic, making its politics anything but static. What new majorities and coalitions could be formed or become possible?  

To consider these proposals and the many related questions about constitutionalism that surround them, Civitas Outlook has asked Jonathan Adler, Josh Blackman, Steven Hayward, William Voegeli, and John Yoo to consider these measures in light of our Constitution and what implementing them would mean for our republic. 

Jonathan Adler "Making Congress Legislate Again"

Josh Blackman "Curtail the Cult of Judicial Celebrity"

Steven Hayward "Progressivism’s Bi-Polar Disorder"

William Voegeli "A Majority Held in Restraint"

John Yoo "The Constitution Gets in the Way"