Revisiting Jefferson’s Proposal: Should the U.S. Constitution Be Rewritten Every 19 Years?

Thomas Jefferson once proposed an audacious idea: the U.S. Constitution should expire every 19 years and be rewritten. This notion has sparked debate among scholars, politicians, and citizens alike. Some argue that such a radical approach would introduce instability and undermine the continuity that defines the United States. Others contend that periodic reviews and refinements could ensure the Constitution remains a living document, responsive to contemporary needs and challenges.

Jefferson’s Uniquely Baked Idea

Jefferson’s specific suggestion was indeed half-baked for several reasons. Discarding the entire document every 19 years would create a significant lack of continuity, leading to potential chaos and inefficiency. However, the core idea of periodically updating and amending the Constitution holds merit. A regular public referendum on the Constitution every decade or so could systematically identify needed amendments for ratification. This would not only address the need for language modernization but also ensure that contemporary issues, such as the emoluments clauses and campaign finance reform, are addressed.

Stability and Tradition: Arguments Against Regular Rewrite

Supporters arguing against the idea of Jefferson’s proposal point to the stability and sense of continuity that the current Constitution provides. A new constitution every 19 years would fundamentally alter the nation's identity and erode the historical and cultural significance attached to the existing document. Additionally, stability, security, and the trust of the people in the government are critical and would be jeopardized by such a drastic change.

The Potential for Constitutional Conventions

Many advocates for constitutional reform propose a constitutional convention rather than a rigid 19-year cycle. A constitutional convention could provide a structured process for evaluating and improving the Constitution. While it is argued that such a convention should not be forced every 19 years, it is a reasonable suggestion to conduct such a review periodically to reflect on its effectiveness and make necessary adjustments.

History and Experience: An Argument for Change

The automobile industry provides a compelling analogy. Just as cars and appliances have evolved significantly over time, the Constitution can also benefit from updates based on the 240 years of experience since its adoption. Updating the Constitution with every generation would ensure that its protections and limitations evolve to meet the changing needs of society.

Edmund Randolph, a key figure at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, rightfully argued that the earlier Articles of Confederation were created during “the infancy of the science of constitutions.” This statement serves as a reminder that governance and constitutional development are continuous processes. Jefferson’s proposal was not based on the expectation of improvement, but rather on the principle of intergenerational fairness, ensuring that no generation imposes its policies and debt on future generations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the idea of rewriting the Constitution every 19 years is impractical, the concept of periodic amendments and reviews is essential. Revising the Constitution and including a structured process for public input could ensure that it remains a vibrant, responsive, and fair document for future generations. This approach would balance the need for continuity with the importance of adapting to new societal challenges and values.