
Voices of Trinity: Constitution Day Straw Poll Results!!
Federal law requires colleges and universities to observe Constitution Day every year on September 17, the anniversary of the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. This year we took a straw poll of the Trinity community asking some questions about the Constitution and also about the presidential election coming up in November. This blog summarizes the answers from our campus community. An equal proportion of students, faculty and staff participated, see the pie chart on the left showing the participation.
First Question: The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States says: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Are the goals stated in the Preamble to the Constitution still valid, or does the Constitution need to change to meet contemporary needs?
42% said: Yes, the goals remain valid and we should support the Constitution as is.
44% said: Yes, the goals are valid but the Constitution needs some adjustments for today’s society.
6% said: No, the goals are no longer valid and we need substantial change in the Constitution.
6% said: The goals were never valid and we should scrap the Constitution entirely in favor of a brand new approach to government.
Comments following the replies are robust:
Sample comments from students:
We need to figure out how we can find a better way to insure domestic tranquility since we are more divided among states.
The Constitution needs major revamping. Majority of the Constitution is out dated and are no longer applicable in this modern day society.
The Constitution as it was ratified 1788 was for citizens ( African Americans and Hispanics weren’t citizens) therefore it doesn’t apply to me because we weren’t freed until the Emancipation Proclamation was signed and some others were freed on Juneteenth. We as a nation have to petition for the Constitution to be REVISED so that all people be recognized as citizens.
The Constitution remains valid today because it guarantees every American citizen his or her fundamental rights and the protections of life, liberty, and property. It does so by preventing too much power from ending up in too few hands. The Constitution divides and disperses government power to prevent any person or group to obtain power without first seeking to compromise and reach consensus with others. It divides power to create a system of checks and balances among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Power between states and the federal government is divided as well. In order to change “the law of the land”, there must be widespread agreement among the American people and/or states.
The Constitution was written by those in power, to keep them and their linage in power. It doesn’t represent the oppressed members of society.
Sample Comments from Faculty:
Abolish: Senate, Electoral College, 2nd Amendment. Add an education clause and health care clause similar to the Commerce Clause as a national, rather than state and local, department.
The constitution needs to be updated to reflect the current population, climate, technology and other areas of today’s society.
The electoral college no longer represents the majority of the people and instead gives some states a disproportionate importance over others. The same with the fact that there are only two senators from each state. This means that states with large populations have the same representation as states with few people. I don’t think the founding fathers envisioned a situation such as exists today with most of the major population centers on each coast and not so much in the middle. I read that the state of California has the same population as 14 states in the middle of the country. Again this is disproportionate representation.
The constitution was NEVER inclusive of brown and black ppl. Nor was it written by any. If anyone believes that anyone OTHER than white people benefit from the constitution, are sadly mistaken and uninformed.
The constitution is long overdue for new amendments that address term limits for the Supreme Court, equal rights for women, reproductive freedom for women, ensure the office of the presidency is not immune from criminal prosecution and eliminate the electoral college.
Sample comments from staff:
The Preamble to the Constitution holds timeless validity, yet it requires clarity to reflect its true intent. When originally written, the word “We” did not encompass all people, and I believe it is essential to address who is included in this collective today. Without such clarification, the meaning of “We” remains ambiguous, especially for those reading it now, in a vastly different context than when it was first penned. This issue of inclusivity is not just a historical matter but a present-day struggle, as evidenced by movements aimed at banning books, dismantling affirmative action, and challenging DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging)initiatives. These actions suggest that the fight over who is truly represented by “We”continues to play out beyond the scope of the Constitution. In these critical times, it is more important than ever for all citizens to engage and vote, ensuring that the Constitution’s principles reflect everyone’s diversity and rights.
The stated goals of the preamble are largely unrealized for many. As a framework for governance, the Constitution is useful, but much of its original content and intention was/remains harmful in many ways. There are clarifications needed, such as for 2ndamendment. The reality of life and society for the founders is not the reality we live in today.
I think that the goals are valid as stated, but that they need to be defined in a way that is applicable to today’s society. “Domestic tranquility” cannot continue to mean “the comfort of white people;” “General Welfare” must actually apply generally, “Justice” must be”establish[ed]” such that no one can escape it, and “ourselves and our Posterity” must include everyone, so that all Americans can feel their lives touched by the “Blessings of Liberty.”
The United States is constantly becoming and evolving as a nation and the Constitution responds by making adjustments in the form of amendments, Jefferson and Hamilton articulated the fundamental constitutional question that remains with us today: how much power does the Constitution give the Federal Government? Until 1992, heightened in 2010. This issue was addressed through compromise legislation, which is not possible today. Obviously such compromise is not possible today in part because the electoral system gives the small states (red states) power which they will not give up which leads to the contortions posed Electoral College. Unfortunately eliminating the Electoral College seems almost impossible because it is so tightly intertwined with the method of representation and the method of election (SMD winner take all).
Second Question: Below is a list of just some of the changes proposed to the Constitution over the years. Please rate them according to the scale:
Great Idea! Let’s Do It! | Needs More Discussion | Unrealistic | Terrible Idea | No Opinion | |
Enact the Equal Rights Amendment (to prohibit sex discrimination, pending since 1923) | 87.12% | 6.06% | 0.00% | 2.27% | 4.55% |
Enact a new amendment to make the President of the U.S. liable for criminal acts in office (“No One Is Above the Law Amendment” to offset recent Supreme Court decision granting presidents immunity from prosecution) | 78.79% | 13.64% | 3.03% | 3.03% | 1.52% |
Establish term limits for members of the Supreme Court (currently lifetime appointments Article III Section 1) | 71.97% | 20.45% | 0.76% | 3.79% | 3.03% |
Grant Statehood to the District of Columbia (Article IV Section 3) | 68.18% | 15.15% | 3.03% | 7.58% | 6.06% |
Amend the Second Amendment to clarify the meaning of the “right to bear arms” | 60.31% | 26.72% | 4.58% | 6.11% | 2.29% |
Abolish the Electoral College (Article II Section 1 and the 12th Amendment) | 45.80% | 36.64% | 5.34% | 7.63% | 4.58% |
Establish a new amendment ensuring the right to privacy | 45.45% | 41.67% | 6.06% | 4.55% | 2.27% |
Enact a new amendment allowing prayer in schools | 22.14% | 27.48% | 5.34% | 37.40% | 7.63% |
Repeal the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms in office | 12.98% | 25.95% | 2.29% | 54.96% | 3.82% |
Abolish “Birthright Citizenship” (the 14th Amendment makes children born in the U.S. citizens regardless of the immigration status of parents) | 10.61% | 14.39% | 6.82% | 63.64% | 4.55% |
Note: for readability, additional comments about amending the Constitution and related issues are at the bottom of this blog.
Third Question: For you and your family, what is the ONE most important issue at stake in the 2024 election?
Students answered with these issues stated most often:
- Immigration policies
- Right to Life
- Abortion Rights. Reproductive Rights. Women’s Rights.
- The Economy. The High Cost of Living.
- Police Reform
- Student Loans
- Peace
Faculty answered with these issues stated most often:
- Preservation of Democracy
- Abortion Rights. Women’s Rights.
- Defeating Authoritarianism
- Civil Liberties
- Transgender rights
- Protecting/Restoring DACA for our students
- Preventing gun violence
- Education
- Reducing income disparities
- Restoring respect for the Rule of Law
- Environmental Protection
Staff answered with these issues stated most often:
- Anti-racism
- Ending demonization of immigrants
- Preserving democracy
- Healthcare
- Supporting small business owners
- Inflation. The Economy.
- Housing
- Reproductive Rights. Abortion.
- LGBTQ Rights
- Student Loans
BONUS QUESTION: If the election were held today, who would you vote for?
All Responses (percentage results):
Responses by Cohort Numbers — Students, Faculty, Staff (actual numbers voting):
Additional Comments on Constitutional Issues, Amendments, Related Topics:
A faculty member writes with regard to the Supreme Court opinion on presidential immunity:
“The Supreme Court faced a difficult problem when it came to Presidential immunity. Throughout our history we have largely ignored that problem because the office of President has usually been filled by men of goodwill who were committed to (their interpretation of) the Constitution.. Presidents sometimes have to do things in defense of the United States that, if you or I did them, would be outright crimes according to our laws or the laws of many other countries. If they knew that they would be prosecuted for those actions, they might not take them, to the detriment of our nation. A good example of that is the killing of Osama Bin Laden in 2011. Bin Laden’s continued existence was a clear and present danger to the United States and its citizens, since he had already orchestrated the murder of 3,000 Americans. Two administrations, those of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, sought to kill him and did not hide their intentions. Bush failed to kill Bin Laden and Obama succeeded, but either would have been guilty of a crime had they personally shot Bin Laden on the street (or caused him to be shot). No one thought of prosecuting President Obama for murder in 2011. Almost all people realized that he caused Bin Laden to be assassinated to preserve the Union and the general Welfare mentioned in the Constitution’s preamble.
“All of this changed with the emergence of Donald Trump. He was and is self-serving and not committed to any interpretation of the Constitution. Those goals in the preamble were and are irrelevant to his thinking. Given the experience of, and prospect of, a man not of goodwill in the office of President, the Supreme Court had to face a question they had mostly been avoiding for more than two centuries: What are the limits of Presidential power when it comes to our laws? Maybe you think the Supreme Court was just handing Trump a get out of jail free card, but I don’t imagine that most of the justices were thinking along those lines. They came up with a distinction between official acts and personal acts. This distinction does let Trump off the hook for some of his crimes. However, it may not do so for other crimes he has committed. The Court probably felt that it was forced to open the can of worms that now requires federal courts to decide what Presidents can and can’t do with impunity. Getting legalistic about something that was previously covered by tradition can get messy, and this decision could easily generate lots of litigation going forward. But it was Trump himself, a man who could not be trusted to do the right thing for the country under any interpretation of the Constitution, who forced this decision on the Supreme Court”
A student writes about the Second Amendment:
“I think the Constitution is a brilliant document. I have studied it in various classes and I am happy that we have our Constitution; however, based on the issues we have with mass shootings especially in schools, I don’t believe every citizen needs “the right to bear arms”. I know it is highly unlikely but I would prefer an amendment to the Constitution that bans assault guns and all guns or a system that includes extensive background checks, license that can be revoked, monitoring system including serial numbers, addresses, etc. In other words, the government should control gun ownership similar to how they control passports. We need to eliminate the amount of guns in this country and extensive regulation.”
Another student writes about Artificial Intelligence and the Constitution:
“AI, social media and other tools online have surpassed boundaries of individuals. There needs to be laws that move at the pace of technology.”
A staff member writes about the current state of political discourse:
“For me and my family, protecting democracy is indeed a critical issue, especially when public figures make statements that could undermine democratic norms. When someone, particularly a former president, speaks about exercising dictatorial power, it should raise serious concerns.In the 2024 election, ensuring that democratic institutions remain intact and that the rule of law is respected should be a priority for voters. It’s crucial that citizens recognize the importance of these statements and consider their implications for the future of the country when making their voting decisions.”
And another staff comment on propaganda and public lies by candidates:
“In an era where misinformation and propaganda can easily distort public discourse and decision-making, it is vital to hold those in political office and those running for office accountable for their words and actions. The spread of falsities for the sake of political gain undermines democratic processes, erodes public trust, and misguides voters.
To address this,I propose the consideration of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would establish clear legal consequences for political candidates and elected officials who knowingly spread false information or engage in propaganda campaigns aimed at deceiving the public. This amendment would aim to ensure that honesty and transparency are foundational principles in political campaigns, upholding the integrity of elections and preserving the trust of the electorate. Such an amendment could help curtail the spread of disinformation, promoting apolitical landscape where the focus remains on the truth and where candidates and politicians are held accountable for their actions. In these times of political polarization and growing misinformation, ensuring that those vying for office engage in truthful and transparent communication is essential for the health and future of our democracy.”
A staff comment on presidential immunity:
“The “No One is Above the Law” amendment is going to have to be a complex and exhaustive list of previously accepted norms/practices that we all discovered around 2015-2017 are actually just suggestions and not actually rules anywhere.
1. Public financial disclosures going back at least a decade: federal, state, foreign taxes, and all business and personal financial statements.
2. No felony convictions without special dispensation from, say, 3/4 of congress
3. Take and pass both the civil service and foreign service exams. Some sort of panel for evaluating acceptable experience as substitution.
4. A physical and mental exam that actually has to be passed. Required public disclosure of the president’s health- square that with HIPAA somehow; the President does not have the same expectation of privacy as a private citizen.
5.Divestment of assets to a blind trust. Cannot be controlled by family, friends, business partners- have it be controlled by some panel in the OMB.
6. POTUS may not meet privately with another world leader without, at minimum, a US translator, security, and someone to take precise notes
7. Re-evaluate the 25th amendment, make it something that could actually happen.
It would also be good if the Logan Act wasn’t just a suggestion for Republican presidential candidates (Nixon with Vietnam, Reagan with Iran, and now Trump with Russia and Israel).”
A faculty member on the Second Amendment:
“In some areas, I do believe that individuals have either misunderstood or misrepresented the intent of the original writers of the Constitution. For example, the right to bear arms refers specifically to the militia. The right of private citizens to own firearms needs to be reviewed and limited, as shown by the countless and ongoing shootings and loss of innocent lives–including those of children. No one has the right to take the life of another, yet we see it constantly across the country.”
And two final faculty comments on the election process:
“Ranked choice voting is essential for this nation to continue to exist. Voting for the lesser evil for decades is a large contributor to the mess we are in now.”
“One thing current events had shown is that we do not need the crazy long election cycles.Perhaps the constitution could be changed to limit the amount of time permitted for a campaign, such as they do in many European countries. The endless campaigning months and years in advance probably contributes to the disinterest many Americans feel over politics. It is also a total waste of money that could be used more wisely.”
Thanks to all for participating in the straw poll! We hope to see everyone at our October 25 Symposium Democracy on the Ballot!