Should the U.S. Pursue a Second Constitutional Convention?
At the Florida State University Institute for Governance and Civics, Morgan Marietta engaged in a lively, respectful debate with constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson on whether the United States should hold a new constitutional convention.
Marietta argued against such a move, emphasizing the enduring strength of the Constitution as a system designed to promote unity, protect rights, and restrain political extremes. He framed constitutionalism as an “ongoing revolution” that requires humility, warning that attempts to fix perceived flaws could unintentionally dismantle the safeguards of liberty. In an analogy, he compared the Constitution’s imperfections to his dog’s quirks, suggesting that removing flaws might also erase essential virtues. He stressed that in today’s climate, a convention would likely deepen division rather than produce meaningful consensus.
Levinson, by contrast, advocated for a new convention as a necessary “checkup” after more than two centuries. While acknowledging the Constitution’s strengths, he argued that its structures, not just its rights, deserve renewed scrutiny. Pointing to issues such as the Electoral College, presidential power, and the difficulty of amending the Constitution, Levinson emphasized the importance of “reflection and choice,” urging Americans to actively reconsider how they are governed.
Despite their disagreements, both scholars modeled thoughtful, civil discourse, highlighting the value of engaging opposing perspectives in constitutional debate.Watch the full debate here.