If there is a silver lining in these dark days for American democracy, it is the pressure test that President Trump and his allies are putting on the Constitution. They are revealing loopholes, gaps and vagueness that let corruption, greed and hate infect the republic.  

It’s time to breathe life back into the document and strengthen it. It is not carved in stone.

Harvard history professor Jill Lepore notes in The Atlantic that 12,000 amendments have been introduced in Congress since the Constitution went into effect 236 years ago. Only 27 have been ratified. The difficulty of amending the document has led people to rely instead on the courts, Congress and the presidency to address contemporary issues of rights and governance.

These institutions are led by politicians and their appointees. Their philosophies change with elections. And if the Founders assumed that voters would always elect men and women loyal to the Constitution, they were naive. They left too much of the document open to interpretation. As a result, our most fundamental rights are built on a foundation of Jell-O.

Between now and America’s 250th birthday next July, Congress could lead a national conversation on how to fortify and update the Constitution. A first step would be to make it somewhat easier to amend the document. For example, the House and Senate could approve a 28th Amendment that would allow it to propose future reforms with majority votes in the House and Senate rather than the two-thirds required now. Three-fourths of states would still be required for ratification.  

As the 28th Amendment proceeds, Congress would conduct a series of televised hearings in which historians, constitutional experts and public interest groups debate additional reforms, such as the following.

Abolish the Electoral College. Allow the popular vote to determine the outcome of presidential elections.  

Clarify the Insurrection Clause. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies from public office any person who swears to support the Constitution but participates in or aids a rebellion. Because Trump instigated a rebellion against the Constitution in 2021 and ran for the presidency again in 2024, the question arose whether the clause applies to presidents. If yes, Section 3 should say so.

A second question was whether disqualifications are automatic. The Supreme Court ruled they are not, and said Section 3 must be enforced by Congress. However, 147 Republicans in Congress voted against certifying Joe Biden’s victory, in support of Trump’s rebellion on Jan. 6, 2021. One could argue that this was a mass violation of the Insurrection Clause, yet none of the 147 were disqualified from public office. Many plan to run for reelection next year.

In practice, putting Congress in charge of policing itself hasn’t worked well. Over the last 250 years, the

© The Hill