Measuring and Manipulating Constitutional Evaluations in the States: Legitimacy Versus Veneration
| Author | Adam R. Brown,Jeremy C. Pope |
| DOI | 10.1177/1532673X18776626 |
| Published date | 01 September 2019 |
| Date | 01 September 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
American Politics Research
2019, Vol. 47(5) 1135 –1161
Measuring and
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Manipulating
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18776626
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X18776626
journals.sagepub.com/home/apr
Constitutional
Evaluations in the States:
Legitimacy Versus
Veneration
Adam R. Brown1 and Jeremy C. Pope1
Abstract
American civil religion places the U.S. Constitution on a pedestal. Although
this veneration is well-documented, it is unclear where it originates and
why other constitutions do not attract the same reverence. We develop
a measure of constitutional respect and conduct a randomized survey
experiment testing whether new information can change respondents’
evaluations of their state or national constitutions. We find that people
do respond to new information about state constitutions, but not to
information about the national document, suggesting that Americans view
the U.S. Constitution with the sort of veneration and reverence James
Madison advocated, while viewing their state constitutions through a more
Jeffersonian lens of legitimacy, one that favors continually revising these
constitutions to meet the living generation’s needs.
Keywords
U.S. Constitution, veneration
1Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jeremy C. Pope, Department of Political Science, Brigham Young University, 745 Spencer W.
Kimball Tower, Provo, UT 84602, USA.
Email: jpope@byu.edu
1136
American Politics Research 47(5)
Whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our
Constitution, the sense of that body could never be regarded as the oracular
guide in expounding the Constitution . . . It was nothing more than the draft of
a plan, nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it by
the voice of the people.
—James Madison (1796 in the House of Representatives, Farrand, 1911, p. 347)
Whatever be the Constitution, great care must be taken to provide a mode of
amendment when experience or change of circumstances shall have manifested
that any part of it is unadapted to the good of the nation. In some of our States
it requires a new authority from the whole people, acting by their representatives,
chosen for this express purpose, and assembled in convention. This is found too
difficult for remedying the imperfections which experience develops from time
to time in an organization of the first impression. A greater facility of
ammendment is certainly requisite to maintain it in a course of action
accommodated to the times and changes through which we are ever passing.
—Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray (1823, spelling preserved)
Americans view their Constitution with respect that borders on venera-
tion. Many people regard it so highly that they “find the notion of seriously
criticizing it almost sacrilegious” (Levinson, 2006, p. 17). Nearly all
Americans (91%) say the Constitution’s “fundamental purpose . . . is to pro-
tect and serve the interests of all people, regardless of their wealth and
power”; almost as many (85%) call the Constitution “a major reason . . . that
America has been so successful,” with just as many believing other countries
should imitate it.1 Three quarters of Americans call the U.S. Constitution “an
enduring document that remains relevant today.”2 Many label it “important”
(71%), “wise” (44%), or even “inspired” (40%)—figures that rise to 83%,
64%, and 56% among Republicans—while few call it “outdated” (20%),
“flawed” (19%), or “irrelevant” (4%).3 The median American rates the U.S.
Constitution at 9 on a 10 point scale (Stephanopoulos & Versteeg, 2016). This
esteem perpetuates itself across generations, contributing to a continuing rev-
erence for the Constitution and its framers—though this reverence seems to
be based on something other than a deep knowledge of the document, as the
public knows very little about the Constitution’s specifics (Farkas, Johnson,
& Duffett, 2002).
Scholarly understanding of this Constitutional veneration remains incom-
plete, however, for two reasons. First, Americans have not one but 51 consti-
tutions—one federal and fifty at the state level—yet existing research focuses
almost entirely on the federal document.4 And second, political science
knows little about where veneration originates or what might affect it. We
Brown and Pope
1137
therefore do not know why Americans venerate the U.S. Constitution, nor do
we know whether that veneration extends to state constitutions. With an eye
on these two gaps, we report an experiment that provides randomly selected
participants with varying information about the national and state constitu-
tions to test whether this new information changes participants’ reactions to
each document—and also whether the effects differ across state and federal
constitutions. This design allows us to draw inferences about general circum-
stances that may affect evaluations of constitutions at both levels.
Our findings reveal that Americans apply different standards to the U.S.
and state constitutions. Perhaps this comes as no surprise: Although state
constitutions vary tremendously in their length (from 9,000 to 376,000
words), amendment rates (from two to 298 amendments adopted over 20
years), and age (from 27 to 233 years), no state constitution is truly compa-
rable with the 1787 federal Constitution—not only by these metrics, but also
by the national Constitution’s preeminence in the minds of voters.5 American
veneration for the national Constitution, rooted in its link to the nation’s
founding myth, renders their evaluations of that document remarkably stable;
none of the treatments reported below meaningfully change respondent eval-
uations of the U.S. Constitution. In contrast, evaluations of state constitutions
rise when respondents learn that their constitution is younger or amended
more frequently than they might suppose, suggesting that voters appreciate
their state constitutions more when presented with evidence of their demo-
cratic nature.
These different results for the national and state constitutions appear to reflect
different sides of an argument between two of America’s founders, Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison, around whose views we frame our discussion
below. Americans today view their state constitutions through a Jeffersonian
lens of legitimacy. From this perspective, constitutions become more legitimate
and deserving of respect when the document has been revised and updated to
reflect current standards and beliefs. Respondents therefore evaluate their state
constitutions more favorably when they learn of regular updates. However,
Americans view the federal Constitution through a Madisonian lens of venera-
tion that values stability and reverence. Thus, evaluations of state constitutions
hinge on perceptions of Jeffersonian legitimacy, whereas evaluations of the
national Constitution reflect Madisonian veneration.
Theory
Before the Constitution was yet 2 years old, Thomas Jefferson and James
Madison had begun arguing about its proper interpretation and stature.
Jefferson wrote to Madison that “no society can make a perpetual constitu-
tion, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living
1138
American Politics Research 47(5)
generation” (Jefferson, 1789).6 He feared institutional ossification, believing
it would bring reduced legitimacy: “Every constitution . . . naturally expires
at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and
not of right.”7
Madison’s reply emphasized practical objections: “Would not a govern-
ment so often revised become too mutable to retain those prejudices in its
favor which antiquity inspires[?]” Directly responding to Jefferson’s argument
that government should be a reflection of the preferences of those alive at any
given moment, Madison responds that previous generations helped create the
world in which any generation lives: “Improvements made by the dead form a
charge against the living who take the benefit of them,” giving their “tacit
assent . . . to established Constitutions and laws” (Madison, 1999, pp. 474-
477, emphasis in original). In essence Madison was saying that, in contrast to
Jefferson who worried about a previous generation binding a later one,
Madison worried much more about excessive fiddling with a constitution.
This was an old theme for him, since in 1788, Madison had argued this
point forcefully in Federalist 49 where he had also responded to a Jefferson
plan for the Constitution of Virginia (though named in Federalist 48, Jefferson
is only referred to as the author of the “Notes on the State of Virginia” in
Federalist 49). Jefferson had proposed that a convention should be called
whenever any two branches call for a correction to the constitution. While
Madison is deferential to this point (and to its author), he firmly rejects it.
First, Madison argues that “frequent appeals” to change the Constitution
would “deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on
everything, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments
would not possess the requisite stability.”8 Madison believed that the true
source of veneration will be opinions that are fortified by examples of the
constitution’s goodness, examples that are both “ancient as well as numer-
ous” (emphasis in...
To continue reading
Request your trial