Americans have lost confidence in its government, and the future of the country’s democracy is at stake. Should Americans abandon the current Constitution, or can it be revised to fix some of its structural flaws?
These were some of the weighty issues discussed by Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who, along with other constitutional scholars, addressed themes in his book No Democracy Lasts Forever at a recent talk on the Fordham University campus at Lincoln Center.
“I’m very fearful for the future of American democracy,” Chemerinsky opened. “When you look at opinion polls, they show that the American people have lost faith in the American government.” He noted that while the recent national election was peaceful, a closer race could have brought chaos, underscoring the fragility of the country’s institutions.
The talk, which included a response from Madiba Dennie, a deputy editor at the legal publication Balls and Strikes, was organized by Fordham Law Professor Julie Suk and Fordham Philosophy Professor John Davenport, who also spoke as panelists at the event.
In his remarks, Chemerinsky addressed the main branches of government created in the Constitution, and how the system of checks and balances envisioned by the Founding Fathers isn’t working anymore. He made arguments for getting rid of the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote, basing congressional representation on state population, and putting non-partisan commissions in charge of drawing districts to combat gerrymandering.
“I worry very much what the next four years may mean for the future of democracy,” he said. “There are guardrails of democracy. We only have to hope they’ll hold.”
Chemerinsky also argued for term limits for Supreme Court justices, saying, “There is too much power in one person’s hands for too long of a period of time.” He also suggested votes from the Electoral College be split among delegates to reflect the will of the voters.
After his analysis, Chemerinsky ended on a hopeful note, “I believe that virtually every problem that exists in the Constitution can be solved if we face the problems and if we have the will to find solutions.”
In her response, Dennie agreed, “We are in a crisis … we are in a dramatically bad situation right now.” She shared Chemerinsky’s views on imposing term limits on the Supreme Court while also suggesting additional solutions, including expanding the House of Representatives and Senate. “It comes down to what will the people accept,” Dennie said. “It is up to the public, so the fate of democracy rests in the public’s hands.”
Suk also wondered if it is time for a new Constitution and whether there is a viable path to get one. She said constitutional scholars have been pointing out problems in the Constitution for decades, but the need for a two-thirds majority in both houses to amend the document makes it nearly impossible (the only alternative is to call a new convention—an idea that Chemerinsky explores in his book). In 2021, Suk and other legal scholars wrote a new sample constitution—designed to be more democratic and modern—which was published in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.
Political Science Professor Robert Hume, who is currently the interim dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, said he found the themes of Chemerinsky’s book “thought-provoking” and said, “I worry a lot about gerrymandering. I worry a lot about the federal courts, where they’re going and their potential to entrench policies that don’t reflect where most Americans are.”
Finally, Davenport closed out the discussion and called for a broad-based movement that would unite social groups to work on meaningful reform, “I do think there’s a lot of motivation … across the nation and across parties to try to do something to strengthen this country, and that’s something we can work with and build on.”
