Change the Supreme Court, not the Constitution

JEFF JACOBY’S advice (“Don’t like the Constitution? Amend it,” Op-ed, July 16) fails to recognize history and political reality.

The Supreme Court made a major change in law by deciding, in the Citizens United case, that corporations could make independent expenditures on behalf of candidates. Those who don’t like this ruling are opposed to the current Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, not the Constitution itself.


Supreme Courts, and their interpretations of the Constitution, change. The 1896 Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” was constitutional. The 1954 Supreme Court, with the same Constitution, found it was not. No amendment was needed.

When corporations and wealthy individuals wanted to change the rules of election financing, they did not take Jacoby’s advice to go through the lengthy amendment process. They worked to elect presidents who appointed the Supreme Court justices who changed the election financing rules.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:
Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.
Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

Instead of telling people who don’t like these rulings that a constitutional amendment is necessary, Jacoby should tell them to do what the corporations did: Elect presidents who will change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court.

Michael Jacoby Brown


Loading comments...
Real journalists. Real journalism. Subscribe to The Boston Globe today.