
What’s So Great About a Written Constitution?
Having one document that sets up a government does not result in better democratic outcomes than having a mix of statutes, norms, and precedents.

A special project on the constitutional debates in American life, in partnership with the National Constitution Center
This work was commissioned, produced, and edited by The Atlantic's editorial staff. Support for this work was provided in part by the organizations listed here.
Support for this project was provided by the Madison Initiative of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

Having one document that sets up a government does not result in better democratic outcomes than having a mix of statutes, norms, and precedents.

The Supreme Court told citizens to improve the country’s democracy by passing ballot initiatives. They tried.

In the 1940s, the scholar William Ernest Hocking envisioned a theory under which the government actively facilitated free speech.

The state previews how far Republican judges will go to obstruct Democrats in office.

Rules exist for what could come next, but they won’t prevent total chaos.

There’s simply not enough time to do this properly before the election.

Expanding the Supreme Court makes sense for both practical and constitutional reasons.

Bill Barr is convinced that the country is betraying its founding—and that it’s up to him to stop it.

The justice understood that the two great principles of American democracy—equality and liberty—are not at odds, but rather integral to each other.

The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concludes an era of faith in courts as partners in the fight for progress and equality.