“That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode of introducing them should be provided.” – James Madison on amending the Constitution

Last month we celebrated Constitution Day.

The U.S. Constitution is an incredible – almost miraculous – document that created a new form of government, federalism, and set the ground rules for running a nation of only a few million but now governs more than 330 million.

It has only been amended 27 times over that long time span, and the first ten amendments – what we call the Bill of Rights – could almost be thought of as part of the original document. They were approved by the first Congress within months and ratified by the states within a couple of years.

Using that logic, we really have only amended the Constitution 17 times over 236 years – which roughly averages one amendment every 14 years.

Yet, we have not ratified an amendment since 1992 and even that amendment came with special circumstances. The 27^th amendment, dealing with Congress’s ability to change its own members’ salaries, was proposed way back at the same time as the Bill of Rights amendments.

Since there was no time limit set for the states to ratify that proposed amendment, it finally got enough states on board with ratification during the year of Johnny Carson’s departure from the “The Tonight Show.”

The 26^th Amendment really could be considered the most recent amendment. It set voting age eligibility across the country at no higher than 18 and was ratified way back in 1971.

Keeping the Constitution as short and uncomplicated as possible is a strength of the document as you do not have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand most of what it says.

However, I happened to catch a couple of interviews conducted on the “PBS News Hour” as part of its coverage involving Constitution Day. They were about ways to interpret the Constitution’s text.

One involved a researcher from the Heritage Foundation who talked about how we should rely on what is known as originalism to understand the Constitution. This means we should only use what is written in the Constitution and what is clearly intended by the framers of the Constitution in deciding what laws and actions are allowable.

The other involved a Harvard professor who argued for the “living document” point of view. This allows for information we have learned since the 1780s to be taken into account when trying to apply the Constitution’s principles. After all, the framers could not anticipate the internet, nuclear weapons or space stations.

While the two interview subjects likely disagree about a lot when it comes to the Constitution, there was one topic they both brought up without prompting. Americans have largely abandoned trying to amend the Constitution to change the rules of our society.

Instead, Republican and Democrat presidents and Congress members try to appoint judges who will make rulings favorable for what the parties want. This strategy is easier than building the consensus needed to amend the Constitution.

Nevertheless, trying to manipulate the judicial system and rely on judges’ rulings to make major changes to law is not what the Constitution’s creators had in mind.

Given how far apart Democrats and Republicans are on the issues at the moment, the opportunities to pass new laws, much less ratifying amendments, may seem far-fetched.

Mark me down as an optimist on this topic, though. Here is one issue where we might build a consensus. Article Two of the Constitution provides the president the power to grant pardons and reprieves to people convicted of federal crimes.

Last week, President Donald Trump commuted the sentence of former U.S. Rep. George Santos, of New York, who was convicted of defrauding campaign investors and even stealing the identities of several donors, according to AP reporting.

It continued a recent string of acts of clemency for former Republican elected officials, including former U.S. Rep. Michael Grimm and former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland.

This aggressive use of presidential power to shield the politically well-connected from the consequences of their actions is not limited to Trump, however.

Many might remember former President Joe Biden recently granted more acts of clemency than any other president in American history, according to Pew Research. That included his son, Hunter.

If we can agree both parties’ presidents are now abusing their powers of pardons and reprieves, maybe that could spur the level of consensus needed to add the 28^th amendment to the Constitution.

That could certainly add some oomph to future Constitution Days.