The Limits of Veneration: Public Support for a New Constitutional Convention

Abstract

At the conclusion of Our Undemocratic Constitution, Sanford Levinson asks the American people to call a new constitutional convention. Levinson's critics dismissed this call as fanciful, not least because of the assumption that the populace unthinkingly venerates the Constitution too much to countenance the idea of a convention. We challenge the conventional wisdom on conventions by analyzing a 2011 Time magazine poll indicating one in three Americans would support such a call. While constitutional support remains high, we contend the cultural power of law allows citizens to have meaningful and sometimes critical constitutional attitudes. Logistic regression analysis indicates various personal attributes shape these attitudes, including ideology, race, age, income, and constitutional knowledge. Approval of Congress and preferred method of constitutional interpretation also structure convention support.

The Role of Periodic Conventions in Generating and Undermining Constitutional Loyalty

“…Scholars have also found that other factors figure prominently in generating constitutional support. Blake and Levinson (2016) find that one's legal consciousness (e.g. their preferred mode of constitutional interpretation) shapes constitutional attitudes and support; in examining support for a federal constitutional convention, the authors find that convention support is linked to how one evaluates her legal standing relative the constitutional status quo bias.…”

“…However, they do not address wholescale constitutional replacement. Blake and Levinson (2016) are closer to the mark examining federal constitutional convention support, but their study is geared more towards constitutional interpretation rather than determining if a person's constitutional loyalty was affected.…”

“…Given the knowledge that a constitution could be fundamentally changed and was/was not, how do feelings on its legitimacy vary (if at all)? Conceptualized this way, Blake and Levinson's (2016) analysis is closer to measuring constitutional loyalty, 6 while Zink and Dawes (2016) demonstrate how the same policy framed as a constitutional amendment enjoys less support than when characterized statutorily.…”

“…Neither, however, discuss a constitution's prior susceptibility to change (e.g. being informed that prior conventions were rejected), with Blake and Levinson (2016) suggesting individuals are making a contextualized, short-term assessment, viz. how is the constitution at present doing?…”

“…At least among state legislatures, a willingness to countenance constitutional conventions at the federal level is also apparent given that over 28 states have approved resolutions calling for an Article V convention (Blake and Levinson 2016).…”