We Should Have A 2050 Constitutional Convention

Reviving the American Civic Spirit this July 4th

The first Constitutional Convention in 1787, in Philadelphia

The question whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; & that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct¹ to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it…

Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, & not of right. It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only.
Thomas Jefferson

There is something deeply wrong with America

There is something deeply wrong with America. U.S. citizens trust in government is at an all-time low.² The machinery of the federal government process continues to grind on, but increasingly few believe in the process or the institutions themselves.

All around us, there is a growing, populist urge for disruption. Donald Trump was not only re-elected, but won the popular vote for the Republican party for the first time in 20 years, running against the very embodiment of institutional continuity.³ His incredible re-return to office is an unmistakable indictment of the status quo.

Even among elites, new idealogical currents are swirling beneath the surface. From the abundance movement pushing for outcome-driven governance over a liberalism that obsesses with process compliance, to San Francisco’s fascination with Lee Kuan Yew (or Curtis Yarvin), there is a growing interest in rethinking the fundamentals of how America governs.

An increasingly frustrated electorate is looking for drastic changes in political governance. To do nothing is to invite increasing political strife and polarization, a lack of cathartic resolution to the growing divide in basic norms and values. How do we meaningfully address these tensions as a country, without tearing it apart?

My July 4th proposal: we should have a constitutional convention in 2050.⁴

First, why a constitutional convention?

“The status quo has no absolute sanctity under our form of government. It must constantly justify itself to the people in whom is vested ultimate sovereignty over this nation”

Admiral Hyman Rickover

America is the only country that is constantly being reborn

William Knudsen

First, we need a new set of governing principles grounded in the realities of the modern era. Today’s fiercest cultural battles hinge on 18th- and 19th-century phrases like “bear arms” and “due process”—terms stretched beyond recognition to adjudicate questions like gun control and abortion. Is it any wonder trust in government has collapsed, when decisions over the most intimate and explosive issues in American life rest on interpretive gymnastics? We live in an age with twitter and weapons of mass destruction and central banks. It’s time to reground the framework of our government in the world we actually inhabit.

Our two political parties agree on less and less—not just in terms of policy, but in their visions of national identity and purpose. A constitutional convention allows these debates to spill clearly into the fore, in the arena of ideas, rather than being imperfectly embodied behind different candidates expressing these values. The level of political discontent increasingly demands release and will either continue to oscillate between increasingly illiberal political extremes or spill into violence⁵. A constitutional convention offers a catharsis, a release valve, to channel collective frustration and desire for change into productive ends.

Democracy does not confer the most skilful kind of government upon the people, but it produces that which the most skillful governments are frequently unable to awaken, namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it, and which may, under favorable circumstances, beget the most amazing benefits. These are the true advantages of democracy.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume 1

Still more salutary is the moral part of the instruction afforded by the participation of the private citizen, if even rarely, in public functions. He is called upon, while so engaged, to weigh interests not his own; to be guided, in case of conflicting claims, by another rule than his private partialities; to apply, at every turn, principles and maxims which have for their reason of existence the general good; and he usually finds associated with him in the same work minds more familiarized than his own with these ideas and operations, whose study it will be to supply reasons to his understanding, and stimulation to his feeling for the general interest. He is made to feel himself one of the public, and whatever is their interest to be his interest…From these accumulated considerations, it is evident that the only government which can fully satisfy all the exigencies of the social state is one in which the whole people participate…

John Stuart Mill, Consideration on Representative Government

But more importantly, by creating a window of opportunity to reimagine the fundamentals of our country, we can revive the American civic imagination. Imagine thanksgiving dinner tables filled with vigorous debates about the ideals and principles of our nation, rather than an increasingly fractured partisan fact base. The bounty to political science departments alone will be immeasurable, as young, bright minds will once again find purpose in studying the politics of government.

I do not pretend that a new constitution would solve even a majority of the problems we face as a country. But anchoring the distant hope of such change could spark a new wave of political engagement—a generation of civil servants, community leaders, and yes, better politicians—drawn to the hard work of reimagining our shared future. A 2050 constitutional convention could serve as a lodestar that points us toward a deeper civic commitment even if we never reach that distant horizon.

And only a constitutional convention is large enough in scale and scope to captivate the national imagination. Smaller experiments in citizen assemblies, while laudable, are too brief, too incremental, and too narrow to awaken real civic participation. Indeed, by their very nature, they are often performative or advisory. Similarly, constitutional amendments are too narrow to capture attention and too incremental to realize the change that is demanded.⁶

No, we need to create a window of opportunity to do something far more drastic.

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

Washington Farewell Address 1796

Founding fathers like Jefferson and Washington understood that the Constitution was never meant to be static. They didn’t get it right the first—or even the second—time: we lived under the Articles of Confederation for six years before trying again with the Constitution, and even then, the Bill of Rights had to be added just two years after ratification. In his farewell address, Washington made it clear that the obligation to obey the law rests on the promise that the people can change it. That promise—of a democracy truly by and for the people—demands to be renewed.

Why a constitutional convention so far off though?

“For what do you hunger, Lord?” Moneo ventured.
“For a humankind which can make truly long-term decisions. Do you know the key to that ability, Moneo?”
“You have said it many times, Lord. It is the ability to change your mind.”

Herbert, God Emperor of Dune

Why a constitutional convention so far off though? Why not a convention next year or in 2030? This is partly a matter of logistics and incentives: it will take some time to determine the structure of a constitutional convention. Setting a distant date decouples the questions of 1) whether to have one and 2) how to have one. Allowing partisan consensus to first form on the need for one, and then at a later time to determine the exact structure, while still being far away from the actual date of the convention, avoids the usual constituent politicking that plagues attempts at near-term reform.⁷

But the far more important reason is that a constitutional convention 25 years away will inculcate political longtermism. Imagine parties that are shaped not by short-term incentives or squabbling, but by a generational strategy towards party success. To inspire a true revival of civic spirit requires a challenge worthy of a generation, a goal grand enough to inspire a lifetime’s work.

---

Finally, we need a constitutional convention, a national project where we question the norms and assumptions of what constitutes an effective democracy, because democracy today increasingly faces a legitimacy crisis. The spectacular economic success of the authoritarian “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, juxtaposed with increasingly unstable western democratic governments unable to deliver shared prosperity and economic growth, means democracy and rule of law are no longer seen as the ideal of governance, especially here at home. A constitutional convention for the oldest democracy in the world would do what democracy today too rarely manages: prove it can still change. And in doing so, it could excite the global imagination and spark a new wave of political creativity within democratic liberalism.

“Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and generations which preceded it.”

Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the Lord's release has been proclaimed.

Deuteronomy 15:1-2

---

I entertain no delusions about how likely this idea is to come to fruition. But we are living in unprecedented times™, where “a new world is being built—but its shape and form have yet to be determined.” In moments like this, the boldest ideas are the most necessary.

And of course, we should not forget the story of how the 27th constitutional amendment came about:

The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a 19-year-old student at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper for a government class in which he claimed that the amendment could still be ratified. He later launched a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification. The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution, effective May 5, 1992.

1. the right to enjoy the use and advantages of another's property short of the destruction or waste of its substance.

2. Pew Report. Note the same poll found that by ethnicity, whites had the lowest trust in government out of any U.S. ethnic group.

3. Mamdani’s upset against candidates backed by billions of dollars and the city's political establishment as a 33-year old socialist is similar in many ways. Like Trump, he channels a similar disregard for rule of law. Though ideologically opposed, both represent disruption to political incumbents and deep skepticism to rule of law.

4. The date does not actually matter here, so long as it is sufficiently far off

5. As it already is

6. This Constitution Drafting Project, while admirable in its efforts, exactly illustrates the point that an amendment process would just be incremental tweaks rather than imagining substantive change.

7. For instance, non-partisan districting is usually done by 1) passing a bill ending partisan gerrymandering and establishing a non-partisan commission that 2) then goes on to determine districts after the decadal census. A similarly kind of structure could be done here:

1. Passing a congressional bill establishing a date for a constitutional convention and its broad conditions for ratification e.g. the same process as any constitutional amendment

2. The congressional bill establishes a non-partisan blue ribbon committee to determine the actual structure of the constitutional convention. As an example:

   1. each state sends 5 delegates to a constitutional convention, with each state selecting them through their own means e.g. by gubernatorial appointment, with/without legislative confirmation, combination of congressman and governor, etc

   2. the constitutional convention is chaired by the chief justice of the supreme court

   3. the convention can be time-bound, have ratification or non-ratification clauses laid out in advance e.g. convention is only finished when 2/3 of all states agree or 2/3 of all delegates agree