The U.S. Constitution has been guiding our democracy for 237 years. That’s impressive. But it has never undergone a comprehensive review. That’s problematic. Especially for a country that has become so polarized and unsure of its footing.

 

We need a 28th Amendment: one that mandates regular constitutional conventions, including essential procedural detail, and with no limitations on subjects for consideration.

 

The Constitution had obvious imperfections right from the outset and deficiencies that became apparent over time (as well as features that remain ongoing subjects of debate).  Yet there have been only 27 amendments—including the 10 comprising the Bill of Rights. Article V makes ad hoc amendments too difficult and revisions via the convention route too uncertain.

 

There is nothing radical about this proposal. Making mid-course corrections is a common-sense way we deal with life. So as we learn from our experience with the design of our government, as our circumstances and possibilities change (be they promising or concerning), and as our values evolve, why not regular, deliberate re-assessments of the Constitution in order to strengthen our democratic framework?

 

The questions are fundamental. Where is the Constitution working well and should be left as is? Where is it unclear, inadequate, ineffective, unfair, or shortsighted? And what should be done about these deficiencies?

 

Consider, for example, the Second Amendment, an incomprehensible mishmash. If we claim a right to bear arms, shouldn’t the provision be clearer and applicable to today’s society? Wouldn’t a convention provide an opportunity to articulate a nuanced stance most modern-day Americans can live with?

 

There are also familiar systemic concerns. For instance, does the balance of power among the federal government’s three branches need fine-tuning? Should the Electoral College be reformed, replaced, or left unchanged? (This question might be resolved in conjunction with a consideration of whether we’d be better off with a multi-party system.)

 

More broadly, how should the Constitution address values that are cherished, but viewed in various ways, like freedom, security, privacy, community, and opportunity? And can it guide us toward a sensible balance between our current desires and our obligation to future generations?

 

Still, the thought of holding such a convention, even once, makes many people uneasy. Who knows what it might produce?

 

Yet inaction doesn’t serve us well—especially at the risk of stagnation.

 

The first step is ensuring these conventions gain the American people’s trust.

 

Trust means the way each convention is organized and conducted has integrity, playing no favorites and minimizing undue influence from vested interests.

 

Trust also means that as in 1787, the convention’s work is undertaken by some of the most widely respected and experienced people among us. Delegate partisanship takes a back seat to delegate quality.

 

This proposal is premised on a spirit of compromise and unity rather than winners and losers. It seeks to make changes the vast majority of Americans, regardless of philosophical stripe, can support and feel invested in.

 

To that end, I recommend a mechanism with the following elements:

 

1. No public officials can serve as Convention delegates.

2. Each state (including the District of Columbia for this purpose) is represented by 3 delegates, a total of 153 delegates.

3. Each one of a state’s two legislative bodies selects a single delegate. In Nebraska and Washington, DC, the one-body legislature selects both.

4. The selection of each delegate requires an 80% supermajority. This virtually ensures that for at least 2/3 of the states, one or both delegates chosen by the state legislature will need the support of both Democratic and Republican legislators.

5. The first two delegates choose the 3rd delegate. This further ensures philosophical accommodations  and creates an opportunity to add another perspective reflecting that state’s population and circumstances.

6. Each proposal under consideration by the Convention requires a majority vote of the delegations for approval.

7. Once the Convention has passed its set of proposals, Congress can offer changes to those ideas through a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate.

8. If Congress offers any changes, the Convention can re-convene. It can accept Congress’ changes or revise them, or restore its own version. If the Convention does anything other than accept Congress’ changes, it would have a higher bar to clear than before, requiring the support of 2/3 of its delegations, not merely a majority.

9. Ratification of the revised Constitution is achieved through a majority vote of the American people. This would serve as a one-person, one-vote complement to the state-based process for proposing changes.

 

So, how frequently should we undertake this exercise? Notwithstanding Thomas Jefferson’s call for a Constitutional overhaul once a generation, it would be wise to space the conventions fairly far apart, perhaps every 40 years. These gatherings—including the steps preceding and following them—would disrupt the normal workings of government. It will also take time for new Constitutional provisions to become established, demonstrate their strengths and weaknesses, and earn the public’s trust.

 

Congress would identify when the first convention, starting with delegate selection, should take place following ratification. That initial convention can then determine a precise calendar for future conventions.

 

This idea was conceived over an extended period, not as a response to the chaos and uncertainty we’re now living with. A periodic review process would be warranted regardless of who occupied the White House. That said, the topic is especially timely, and the proposal maybe more compelling, in light of the national soul-searching demanded by Donald Trump’s Presidency.

 

Passing this 28th Amendment would be challenging. But it would be worth the effort. A regularly updated Constitution would keep our system of government modernized, nudge us toward a more common vision, and possibly contribute to greater civility in our public discourse.

 

It’s a path to maintaining a dynamic democracy for another 237 years and beyond.