The Fragility of Rights and the Need for Constitutional Change

Redistricting disrupts representation. Voting protections weaken. Established rights face uncertainty. This stems from a choice made in 1964 between moral victory and permanent change. Emotions prevailed.

The civil rights movement achieved legislative triumphs with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These achievements, while significant, were legal statutes, not constitutional amendments. Laws passed by Congress can be modified, repealed, or allowed to lapse. The movement secured moral authority but not constitutional security.

Women’s rights advocates recognized the importance of constitutional entrenchment early on. The Equal Rights Amendment, introduced in Congress in 1923 and passed in 1972, sought this permanence but remains unratified. Statutory vulnerability blocked it then and continues to block it now. The distinction is crucial as we see protections crumble.

The 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision gutted the Voting Rights Act’s enforcement mechanism. Redistricting maps redrawn by majorities aim to consolidate power before demographic changes eliminate that possibility. Protected classes, defined by statute and not by constitutional amendment, rely on legislative protection, which may change.

The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to former slaves. It did not ensure voting rights, equal public access, or protection from discrimination in employment, housing, and education. Congress addressed these issues. The 1960s Warren Court reinforced protections, but later courts began to reverse them.

With changing judicial interpretations, statutory language becomes unstable. Rights dependent on statutes like civil rights protections risk being undone by legislative actions. The Americans with Disabilities Act, marriage equality, reproductive rights, and workplace protections for women lack constitutional backing. Their survival depends on legislative and court decisions.

Both parties are complicit. Gerrymandering persists, and statutory vulnerabilities remain unaddressed. Neither party has pursued constitutional amendments to secure protections permanently. They benefit from the current system, which keeps voters anxious and reliant on upcoming elections and court rulings.

During election cycles, voters are urged to support one party over potential rights threats from the other. However, the conversation rarely addresses why rights remain vulnerable. Most Americans have not been informed that their protections are based on statutes subject to court decisions.

A constitutional amendment would provide permanence. Both parties avoid it to maintain political advantage. The framers of the Constitution included Article Five to allow for significant amendments. James Madison emphasized its importance in protecting the Constitution from frequent changes while allowing necessary improvements.

Article Five demands supermajority consensus and state ratification, ideal for securing protections permanently. Many Americans are unaware of this mechanism. Two hundred fifty years after the nation’s founding, this lack of awareness is unacceptable.

The decision made in 1964 cannot be reversed, but the current choice is clear. The mechanism exists. Both parties are aware of it. The question remains: will the American people call for constitutional amendments?