We the People by Jill Lepore (published September 2025) is a history of the Constitution, beginning with its creation and ratifying and discussing many of the Supreme Court cases that interpreted the Constitution as well as the legislation and possible Amendments that have been debated during its existence. What struck me most was that there was little consensus even at first and it is a bit remarkable that not only did it succeed in being ratified in the 1700s, but it still stands today as a Constitution! The founders did not know what would work or not and there was a good chance the new nation would not stand together in 1787.
Lepore’s book is of course biased toward her perspective. It would be hard to write a political history of any kind without bias. Her liberal perspective on the history of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and public legislation is all the more stark in its contrast to the current conservative interpretation of the Constitution from the “originalist” perspective. Lepore’s argument as a whole is that the Constitution was written to be a living document, ready to adapt and change as times change. Originalists believe it should be understood only as the original framers intended it to be read. That is a tale as old as time.
There are so many things that stood out as I listened to this very long book. She began by discussing the “Invention” of the Constitution. As I mentioned, I was shocked by how unlikely it was that this would be ratified. There were so many disagreements and concerns. If things were written down, something would be left out, it was worried. The next section is “The Battles over the Constitution,” which detailed how Supreme Court cases and legislation interpreted the Constitution over the years. The next section is about Amendments — which ones were argued, which ones passed, and which ones just missed the change to become a part of the Constitution.
Part 4, the last, discusses why the Constitution is no long amendable, mostly due to partisanship. I must admit, I feel she has logical arguments for why, in our partisan environment, it will no long be possible to do much to amend the Constitution using section 5. Rather, it will be up to the Courts to back-and-forth interpret the Constitution for us, with interpretation depending on who is on the Court. That’s kind of a depressing thought.
I learned so much from Lepore’s book. I’ll be honest, I probably missed a lot too. It’s a tome to learn from, yet has a casual tone that makes it read like a story. It’s a nice blend of both educational and entertaining. It definitely goes on the “to re-listen” list.
