Donald Trump was re-elected president in 2024 having escaped accountability in two impeachment trials. The first for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress stemming from his threat to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless that nation’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy cooperated in launching an investigation targeting his political opponent and future president Joe Biden. Trump’s second impeachment was based on “incitement of insurrection,” for his role in fomenting the violent Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 election that Trump lost to Biden. The Senate acquitted Trump in both trials, failing to attain the necessary two-thirds of the vote.
Now back in the White House, Trump is following through on his pledge to seek revenge against his political enemies, as he almost daily disregards foundational checks and balances on executive power enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, defies court orders and violates federal ethics regulations.
In his recent article, “Only a Democratic Constitution Can Stop Trumpism,” Luke Pickrell, co-producer of The Democratic Constitution Blog, examines the very deep flaws in our U.S. Constitution that has contributed to minority rule — which consistently empowers presidents, and allows for the passage of legislation and Supreme Court rulings that don’t represent the views of a majority of American voters. Here, Pickrell talks about the democratic deficiencies in the Constitution and his support for convening a constituent assembly to re-envision a new, more democratic governing structure.
LUKE PICKRELL: One way that I approach this question is to think about the value of universal and equal rights, and especially the right to a vote, but also very importantly, an equal vote. And if one had to describe democracy, that’s how I would do it. A system that ensures universal and equal rights — and particularly that aspect of an accessible and an equal vote.
And that’s what we don’t have, thanks to our Constitution. We’re trying to achieve a democracy in which there is a political system that ensures universal and equal rights and that through that system, we would at least have the possibility of being able to start doing many of the things that we need to be doing.
Also, as long as we don’t have that system based on universal and equal rights and one person, one equal vote, we’re at a constant disadvantage when it comes to fighting back against things that we don’t like, when it comes to creating a better world.
I think one way to describe the interest in the Constitution and viewing the Constitution as a problem is through that universal and equal rights, one person, one equal vote lens.
SCOTT HARRIS: Well, Luke, I did want to ask you about particular campaigns or reform campaigns. There is a campaign to eliminate the Electoral College through something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
There’s also proposals to either expand the number of Supreme Court justices or impose term limits on justices to better reflect majority views that you just mentioned. What are some other ways in which our Constitution can be reformed or updated to eliminate this curse of minority rule that creates such anger, frustration, cynicism, among other things that results in many voters disengaging from the political process and refusing to participate in what many now believe is a rigged system, a system that’s broken, a system that’s, you know, dysfunctional?
LUKE PICKRELL: Sure. Just to touch on one of your points. I agree that I think disengagement and disinterest in the political process has a lot to do with our undemocratic political system. I think countries that have the democratic features that I’m discussing, unicameral legislature in which there’s essentially total, legislative power; a court system that is accountable, basically in which majority desire is reflected. There’s more political participation in those systems.
In terms of going forward, I advocate in my articles and in my discussions with people for a constituent assembly, which I take from the work of Daniel Lazare, but other people too, which is basically just to say a convention managed through or with representatives elected by universal and equal suffrage.
That creates a new plan. And then if that plan is supported by a number — majority of people, that then becomes the structure. Constituent assembly is very different from Article Five, in which the states are represented and not actually the people in terms of one person, one vote. It’s also an open process, which is to say, just like the creation of our current Constitution was illegal under the Articles of Confederation.
This would also be a process outside of the rules of the existing Constitution.
So when people ask how can things be reformed? I don’t think that reforms are possible within the existing rules. I don’t think that there’s a constitutional way out of this mess that we’re in, so to speak.
See more articles and opinion pieces in the related links section of this page. For periodic updates on the Trump authoritarian playbook, subscribe here to our Between The Lines Radio Newsmagazine Substack newsletter to get updates to our “Hey AmeriKKKa, It’s Not Normal” compilation.
For the best listening experience and to never miss an episode, subscribe to Between The Lines on your favorite podcast app or platform.
Or subscribe to our Between The Lines and Counterpoint Weekly Summary.
