Thomas Jefferson v. James Madison on Constitutional Endurance and Change

• In Event: Exploring the Foundations of American Constitutional Thought

Abstract

In this paper, I will provide a close analysis of the debate between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison over how often, and under what circumstances, constitutions should be revised by the people. While Madison holds that constitutions should endure and must only be altered when necessary, Jefferson argues that each generation must ratify a new constitution to reflect its own needs. I will examine the arguments and philosophical assumptions behind each position—as well as how Jefferson and Madison treat one another’s arguments. I conclude that Madison presents arguments in favor of constitutional endurance that are not inspired by an idolization of founders or constitutions; rather, his arguments concern the limits of reason and the nature of law.

Author

• Deborah OMalley, University of Notre Dame