One reason we pay so much attention to who is appointed to the Supreme Court by which president is that in recent decades, we often disagree over how the Constitution should be followed.

Some are convinced the only right

way is to stick as precisely as possible to whatever the original authors were thinking. Others

see the logic in viewing the Constitution as a living document whose meaning can evolve

with changing societal needs and norms. But what if the problem is not the different ways

we might interpret the meaning of the Constitution But what if the problem is not the different ways we might interpret the meaning

of the Constitution? What if the problem is the Constitution itself? From KERA in Dallas,

this is Think. I'm Chris Boyd. At the time, this brief document created the government of the

United States, which at the time was a low population, mostly rural, not very globally important collection of states still shaking off the indignities of 18th century British colonial rule.

More than 200 years later, my guest thinks it's time for us to consider whether it still actually works.

Irwin Chemrinsky is dean of the School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley,

and author of the book No Democracy Lasts Forever, How the Constitution Threatens the United States.

Erwin, welcome back to think.

Such a pleasure to talk with you.

Thank you for having me.

We all learned about the drafting of the

Constitution in history classes, but we didn't necessarily focus on the kind of then and now

differences in the United States as a whole. So will you start by reminding us what sort of

country we were at the time the framers were charged with setting up the rules for this brand new country.

You described it well. It was 13 states that were all along the eastern seaboard.

Rhode Island didn't actually participate in the Constitutional Convention. So it was just

representatives of 12 states. It had a very small population, largely because of the Atlantic Ocean, there wasn't much

...