The People's Constitution: 200 Years, 27 Amendments, and the Promise of a More Perfect Union

by John F. Kowal, Wilfred U. Codrington III

The 233-year story of how the American people have taken an imperfect constitution--the product of compromises and an artifact of its time--and made it more democratic Who wrote the Constitution? That's obvious, we think: fifty-five men in Philadelphia in 1787. But much of the Constitution was actually written later, in a series of twenty-seven amendments enacted over the course of two centuries. The real history of the Constitution is the astonishing story of how subsequent generations have reshaped our founding document amid some of the most colorful, contested, and controversial battles in American political life. It's a story of how We the People have improved our government's structure and expanded the scope of our democracy during eras of transformational social change.

The People's Constitution is an elegant, sobering, and masterly account of the evolution of American democracy.

From the addition of the Bill of Rights, a promise made to save the Constitution from near certain defeat, to the post-Civil War battle over the Fourteenth Amendment, from the rise and fall of the "noble experiment" of Prohibition to the defeat and resurgence of an Equal Rights Amendment a century in the making, The People's Constitution is the first book of its kind: a vital guide to America's national charter, and an alternative history of the continuing struggle to realize the Framers' promise of a more perfect union.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Law, Politics, Government

496 pages, Hardcover

Published September 21, 2021

Reviews

[Jdb · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is crap.

What might have been an informative history of the Constitutional amendment is nothing more than a biased left/liberal polemic. Conservative positions are consistently demonized as far right. The authors also commit presentism, a fatal flaw for historians who lack integrity.

The authors criticize SCOTUS over decisions they disagree with and then criticize them for NOT getting involved in issues they want. They oppose the electoral college but fail to adequately counterbalance with its advantages. They complain the amendment process is too difficult when attempts they like fail.

They oppose equal representation in the Senate and fail to explain why the Founders set it up that way.

They criticize the Founders when issues are not solved at the national level, misrepresenting Madison’s comments on the need for a ‘strong national government’ (he was commenting on the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and never would have supported the ‘welfare state’ growth of the federal government).

They ridicule the originalist interpretation of the constitution and advocate the ‘living’ theory without analyzing the pros and cons of each.

But there are the occasional tidbits of interest: Article V of the constitution provides for the amendment process. It’s stipulates two methods for amendments. One covers proposals approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. The second method provides for 2/3 of the states to call a convention for proposing amendments which would then be sent to the states for ratification. 33 amendments have been sent to the states and 27 have been ratified. Every single one was originated by Congress. There has never been an amendment that originated from a convention for fear that such a convention would not be able to limit itself to the issue at hand and might make multiple radical changes in the constitution.

Save your money on this one.

[Peter Goodman · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The People’s Constitution: 200 years, 27 amendments, and the promise of a more perfect union,” by John F. Kowal and Wilfred U. Codrington III (The New Press, 2021). Kowal, a vice president at the Brennan Center for Justice, and Codrington, an assistant professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, give a passionate yet balanced account of the debates involved from the passage of the original document itself (Rhode Island stayed aloof) and the Bill of Rights, through each succeeding modification of the founding document. The original document did put its finger on the scale of racism and slavery, but there was constant pressure to loosen those bonds. They find that there have been periods of constitutional quiescence followed by bursts of amendatory action, usually occurring during times of intense national debate. The period during the Civil War, with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments freeing the enslaved, making them citizens, and giving them the vote, are a good example. The founders knew that what they created was far from perfect. But ultimately the decision was, better to have something we can change than nothing at all. There was always tension: slavery and race, economic regulation, moral values, gender equity. They break the amendments into eight eras: the founding (1789-1804); Reconstruction (1865-1870); Progressives (1909-1920); New Deal (and amendments that weren’t); Civil Rights (1960-1971); the ‘70s and the revolution that wasn’t (the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment); and where we are today: Conservative Amendment politics. Although today we tend to think that the process is so convoluted there can be no new thing, ultimately either the amendments pass or the laws change to fit the concerns of the moment. There are two processes: either calling for a constitutional convention as outlined in Article V, or passing the amendments through the Congress and the states, which can take years. Basically, the majority is afraid of convening a convention, for fear that the entire document might be revised out of recognition. There is a question whether the Equal Rights Amendment would still be viable if enough states eventually ratify it. The authors argue that over the years the Constitution has been amended in favor of increased equality: permitting the creation of an income tax, eliminating the (racist) poll tax, lowering the voting age. There have been decades, they say, that the Supreme Court has taken what they call a crabbed view of the Constitution, reading it so narrowly that virtually no change is allowed. At others times it has been more expansive. Over the decades partisans of one issue or another learned how to organize, to lobby, and to push through the change they want. Prohibition is one example, women’s suffrage another. There are decisions they consider clear mistakes: the Heller decision on gun ownership, Citizens United in favor of hidden corporate funding. The situation today seems to be different from those that came before. Where once it was the progressives who fought for change, now it is the right and extreme right that are highly organized to push through their own interpretations. Also, conservatives have been bringing up the possibility of amendment so frequently as to bend legislation in their direction. The authors are clearly on the side of the progressive/liberals. But their account is clear, even-handed and balanced, while you know where their sympathy lies (after all, they are both at the Brennan Center, named for the liberal Justice William J. Brennan, and itself a solidly liberal organization).

https://thenewpress.com/books/peoples...

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ideally, I'd give this 3.5 stars, but we can't do that, and since this is the first full review (of sorts), I'll explain that a bit.

For me, there wasn't a lot new in here. The one big new thing was learning that, in 1864, Missouri's Sen. John Henderson proposed a constitutional amendment to amend the amendment threshold. He proposed cutting it from 3/4 of states to 2/3, or from 38 to 34 in today's American polity. The Equal Rights Amendment would be on the books, were that the case. And, maybe other things, in part because more Members of Congress would have pushed amendments that had a more realistic chance of approval with the lower barrier.

That never got out of Congress to go to the states. Due to lack of further discussion (why didn't we get more? what led Henderson to propose this? why didn't Radicals consider this after the 1866 midterms?) I'll presume that it never even cleared the Senate to head to the House.

A medium-level thing was the authors noting that poll taxes were not originally used as a discriminatory tool. Rather, since all 1789 states had property qualifications to vote, people who rented, or owned land or a home but in too small of a value, but had cash, could pay the poll tax to vote. (Where was that explainer with Henderson's amendment?)

Other than that, nothing even semi-major new to me, which is one reason I'd personally do 3.5 stars.

The other? This, like some recent articles and news analysis pieces, from people with generally a "mainstream liberal" bent like the authors of this book, claim that America's current tightly divided elections means that we're quite possibly on the cusp of a new burst of amendments, based on past history. Well, past is not prologue, and history isn't guaranteed to play out in quasi-cyclical formats. Plus, since the Radicals never picked up on Henderson's idea, and we have a bar of 38 states, not 34, that's not so likely. Also, previous bouts of amendment generally followed the dam breaking, not co-equal with it. Yes, the 13th Amdt got out of Congress somewhat still divided, but Lincoln greased the wheels with patronage, and Radicals voted out the 14th and 15th. Progressives, who had fair standing in both parties, pushed the 16th, 17th and 19th. The 18th and its 21st repeal were sui generis. The 20th, like the 12, was to address a just-faced political crisis. The 23rd, 24th and 26th were from a burst of civil-rights related issues, but all pulled punches to some degree. The 25th was to meat another political crisis and arguably, even before Donald J. Trump, could be seen to be wanting in a number of ways. And, the 23rd was generally considered non-partisan as much as a civil rights issue. (DC was still white-majority and by a fair margin at the time.)

[Zack Oliver · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading this reinforced to me how little of the Constitution has actually penetrated the modern public consciousness. It's not just the people who don't know it, but also the politicians, the lawyers, the people on tv. That or they're all just obscuring the truth to make money and gain power. But whenever a justice interprets the constitution conservatively, claiming that they are interpreting the law as though the founding fathers were sitting across from them, it's funny that their conclusions don't often ring true to the words in the notes of James Madison, for instance, who was actually there. The truth is, the Constitution is an imperfect document, crafted under duress and a time crunch. No one involved felt it was perfect or reflecting the ideals put forth in the declaration of independence, but the Union needed something to keep it together as opposed to falling apart into a group of selfish states. It's good to know why this document is the way it is, and everyone in the country ought to try to have a more perfect understanding of it.

[Cat Ritchie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely fascinating history to read! Things like:
The original framers of the US Constitution (55 white men), did not think that "the people" should vote for who would be President because the people were uninformed and easily misled. This led to the creation of the Electoral College, which is still muddling our politics over 200 years later.
An extremely valuable read, to anyone who cares about this country; past, present, and future.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Perfect has no comparative.

The ”people” in the constitution are a few white male slave owners, and not much else.

The amendments are such smart things as the Prohibition. Or giving the Corporations human rights.

The Union is a voluntary thing. Since Lincoln the United Soviets of America is about force: both inside and outside.

Only Kowal is not here to make the ”more perfect” constitution for the suckers, but for the ”people” of the constitution.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kowal and Codrington explain how the “beta version” of the Constitution produced by the Founders - a “profoundly visionary but fundamentally flawed” document - has been “reshaped and updated” by the amendment process. It’s a reminder that efforts to decipher the Founders’ “original intent” have often given way to America's pursuit of a “more perfect Union.” Fascinating reading.

[Sasush · Rating 5 out of 5]

A long, detailed, in-depth account of the forming of our constitution. An important read for a fuller understanding of who we are and what we are as a nation of citizens. It has taken me a ll g time to complete this book but I highly recommend it for the education of our government's formative history.

[Emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. It set out to reframe our popular understanding of the Constitution as a document that was written once and that’s it. Instead this book explores the amendments that have been added (and some that have failed) to show that this is an evolving document that we the people have a chance to weigh in on. Great book and a good read for the current times.

[Mariam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Corrects the narrative that the Constitution is an unchanged document written by the white men at the Philadelphia Convention. Very informative and well written.

[Lori · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very detailed and I had a hard time bring interested and understanding it.