It’s no secret that America’s Constitution does not adequately serve the needs of our increasingly diverse population. It’s also clear that conservative politicians with originalist attitudes work tirelessly to hinder Constitutional reform. Entrenched in the pits of the Trump administration, playwright and actress Heidi Schreck uncovered an award-winning speech from her past as a teenage constitutional debater and revised it to fit our current political climate. What the Constitution Means to Me opened on Broadway in March of 2019, becoming a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Drama and receiving a Tony Award nomination for Best Play. Staged as a debate competition, Schreck uses personal experiences with various amendments to draw attention to the benefits and drawbacks of the American Constitution. Through extensive debate and discussion, Schreck creates a space for audience members to ponder their own role in the Constitution and consider how to address its shortcomings. This results in a radical proposal for law in the hands of the people–a topic that unexpectedly mirrors present-day political discourse.

In order to understand What the Constitution Means to Me’s impact and activism, one must first understand the context, structure, and content of the play. Schreck is a middle-class, middle-aged, straight, white playwright in New York City, originally from the conservative small town of Wenatchee, Washington. Donning a preppy pastel blazer and flaunting her beloved personal copy of the Constitution in front of an American flag, Schreck initially comes off as slightly chauvinist, though she soon proves she is anything but. She models her play after debate competitions she excelled in as a teenager, where contestants demonstrate an understanding of the Constitution’s by drawing a personal connection to the document. Initially structured through the optimistic perspective of her fifteen-year-old self, Schreck’s speech morphs into a fluid train of thought where she reflects on personal triumphs and tragedies related to the constitution.

Early on, Schreck explains that she loves the Constitution because it’s a living document whose powers can shift over time, yet she is angry because it continuously fails to protect minority groups. This dualism is noted in Schreck’s heartfelt description of her favorite amendment: the Ninth. It states that the “enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” meaning that just because a certain right is not listed does not mean it doesn’t exist. Schreck, a staunch anti-originalist, loves Amendment Nine because it establishes the Constitution’s unknowingness of the future and an ability to change. Justice William O. Douglas’ compared the Ninth Amendment to a penumbra, which Schreck describes as the area of partial illumination between the dark audience and illuminated stage. Schreck continuously revisits this penumbra metaphor to emphasize the contrasting qualities of the Constitution and the various ways to amend its faults. (0:10:04 – 0:13:08)

Instead of labeling the Constitution as entirely good or bad, Schreck creates and controls a space where audience members can appreciate the brilliance of some segments while also acknowledging the injustices that it condones. After discussing various topics pertinent to the Constitution, such as domestic abuse and birth control, Schreck debates a young American to decide if we should keep or abolish it. They then pick an audience member to represent the jury of the audience and decide which side won. Decisions vary each night, but in the play’s pro-shot that is the subject of this analysis, they chose to abolish. Regardless of which side the audience sides with, the verdict is a result of their observing and empathizing with Schreck’s experiences and the strength of her arguments.

Schreck’s discussion of generational violence against women in her family is one of the most notable experiences that bolsters her speech. As a teenage debater, she masked her dissatisfaction and hid her family’s trauma to pander to the judges, who were primarily white veterans. In What the Constitution Means to Me, Schreck sheds her younger identity and speaks candidly as her forty-something-year-old self. With her beaming smile erased and her voice gone hoarse, Schreck is angry about the status of the country and the Constitution that was designed to only protect the privileged. She tells the story of her grandma Betty, whose husband abused her and her six children for years before she built up the courage to report him and have him arrested (0:40:43 – 0:42:46). In a more general sense, Schreck discusses how more women have been killed by male partners this century than Americans who have died in wars (0:54:18 – 0:54:59). By merging personal anecdotes and broad statistics, Schreck explains to the audience how the Constitution has been unsuccessful at solving America’s omnipresent violence against women.

The audience further empathizes with Schreck’s point of view when she uses an adult perspective to describe her experience having an abortion in her early twenties, which she works to destigmatize by talking about openly and positively. She then segues into a multifaceted lecture about birth control’s role in the Constitution. Schreck went on the pill when she was fifteen just in case she was in a hot tub and was attacked by sperm. Initially jovial in spirit, she tells the story of how gleefully washed down her first pill with a McDonald’s chocolate shake; but her story takes a dark turn when she notes that she also wanted to be on the pill “in case of a real attack.” In addition to her own double-edged motivations, she explains how birth control was legalized in 1965; her main takeaway being that the Supreme Court approved its legalization in Griswold v. Connecticut because several justices were having affairs with younger women (0:30:10 – 0:33:10). This reveals that even in court cases that benefit women in the long run, there are still corrupt motivations stemming from the intense power differentials of an all-male court. This anecdote and its corresponding case strengthen Schreck’s argument against the Constitution while revealing the inextricable connection between progress and oppression.

Schreck is a compelling performer who displays herself as a personable figure who audiences can root for and relate to. Performance studies scholar Sarah Kozinn’s book, Justice Performed, explains the audience's appeal towards TV judges, which closely resembles the audience’s appeal towards Schreck. “People look to television to live vicariously and especially to feel some sort of victory” and “viewers [can] indirectly experience the judge’s authority when they relate to them.” While there is a fine line between Broadway and reality TV, Schreck and Judge Judy are both responsible for performing the law to an audience through their own perspective. Broadway audiences, who skew female and to the left, likely agree with many of Schreck’s speaking points (The Demographics). In this case, they see themselves in Schreck and find it liberating and cathartic to see someone speaking controversial topics so eloquently and brazenly. The vulnerability Schreck displays through her storytelling invites people to become invested in her experiences, effectively conveying a powerful overall message.

What the Constitution Means to Me weighs the positive and negative aspects of the Constitution to encourage audiences to consider how to approach reform. The pursuit of a solution is best conveyed in the final portion of the play, where Schreck debates Rosdely Ciprian, a teenage Constitutional debater, to discuss how to fix our broken Constitution. Schreck is assigned to argue that we should keep the existing Constitution because it already contains the tools for its own correction and abolishment would be impossible to execute well. She asserts that a hypothetical new Constitution would erase progress that’s been made on the existing document and risk being rewritten by white men who are currently in power. Ciprian argues that the Constitution should be abolished, citing that the tools for its correction have never allowed it to adequately rectify itself. The US is also capable of rewriting it now because our government is more diverse than it’s ever been and we would not allow solely white men to rewrite the document (1:19:50 – 1:34:51). This debate teaches audience members how to interpret our country's progress and ponder how we would best want to fix the county’s problems.

Schreck and Ciprian’s debate deliberately does not provide a concrete solution, but it does hint at how to go about writing a new Constitution by challenging our current representative democracy and its inability to address much-needed change. By granting an audience member the power to act as a legislator and decide the fate of the Constitution, Schreck conveys the idea that individuals should have a stronger voice in government. While the audience member has no true legislative influence, a well-run government represented in theatre can serve as a model solution for our unjust Constitution. The audience decision in What the Constitution Means to Me is invaluable because it suggests the benefit of a government run truly by the people.

The value of small acts of justice, like the audience decision, is best conveyed when Schreck gushes over the brilliance of the 14th Amendment, which granted equal rights and citizenship to freed slaves. Although Schreck initially notes the undeniable benefits of the 14th Amendment, she backtracks and mentions its shortcomings, stating: "I want to emphasize that these amendments guarantee equal rights only to men. Black women were not given these rights. No women were given these rights. The question of Native American rights never even came up… My dad says this is what we call the penalty box of democracy. Sometimes you have to wait for things. Sometimes it’s better to fix one bad thing than to try to fix two bad things and fail" (0:15:46 – 0:16:38). Taking baby-steps is a necessary but unpleasant part of democracy. It’s enthralling to fantasize of sweeping revolution and immediate reforme, but is difficult to actualize given the conservative and originalist efforts that actively hinder Constitutional reform. In the current context of our forthcoming shift in executive power, many are dissatisfied picking between two undesirable parties. While Joe Biden and Kamala Harris may not be popular amongst Americans who would want a reformed Constitution, these imperfect candidates are a step in the right direction and are a prime example of slow progress that plants the US firmly in the “penalty box of democracy.”

One could also argue that What the Constitution Means to Me exists in the penalty box of theatre due to the privilege displayed throughout, despite being an otherwise consciously crafted piece. Schreck acknowledges that her personal traumas related to the Constitution pale in comparison to trauma among marginalized groups. Although she makes it clear that she is not a white savior, it’s necessary to acknowledge the advantages that both Schreck and her predominantly wealthy, white, and educated Broadway audiences hold (The Demographics). A silver lining to this unintentional echo chamber of privilege is that Schreck is perhaps an ideal advocate for the issues raised because audiences give more trust to people who mirror their image. Yet, the production of the play in an affluent environment ultimately limits the outcomes of possible deliberation. The impact of Schreck’s call for law in the hands of the people is diluted when one realizes that the audience who decides whether or not to abolish the Constitution does not truly represent the people. While What the Constitution Means to Me is an overall progressive piece that emphasizes the importance of diversity and inclusion, it falls victim to the unavoidable bourgeois circuit of the highest theaters in the United States.

What the Constitution Means to Me refers to the audience as “the people,” but elite Broadway audiences do not reflect people outside of theatre, for whom Constitutional reform is all the more pressing. To truly understand the importance of Constitutional reform to address injustice, one can look to Chile, which is currently proving that reform is within reach. Chile’s existing Constitution was written during a violent military dictatorship that resembles the rampant inequality 18th century America. In 2019, a protest for increased metro fares evolved into a large-scale dissent of economic inequality calling for higher wages and pensions, accessible health care, and free public education. In October 2020, Chilean citizens overwhelmingly voted in favor of drafting a new constitution. In April 2021, they will elect members of the Constitutional convention. The new Constitution is estimated to be drafted in 2022, where citizens will then vote to accept or reject the draft (Bonnefoy). Chile is making steady progress towards rewriting their Constitution to move on from a period of inequality. This is precisely the type of progress Schreck references and argues in favor of throughout her play.

Chile is still in the process of a Constitutional referendum; however, their transition away from a dictatorship indicates an immense opportunity for the type of improvement Schreck yearns for. The US Constitution consists mostly of negative rights, which are rules outlining what the government cannot do to you. For example, they cannot kill you or take your belongings. Alternatively, positive rights more adequately protect people’s rights because it defines what the government is obligated to give you, such as the right to healthcare or a fair trial. Schreck differentiates between positive and negative right through Castle Rock v. Gonzales, where she emotionally explains how the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s Court decided that police were justified in their refusal to help a woman whose ex-husband abducted and murdered their daughters after violating a restraining order (0:48:21 – 0:53:25). Because of our negative rights Constitution, the court decided that police are banned from inflicting harm, but are not required to help. This is one of many injustices that could have been prevented by explicitly written positive rights.

Through Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Schreck outlines which groups are protected by the law and what dangerous consequences we can expect when certain groups are not explicitly protected. There are several countries whose positive rights constitutions can serve as a model for others. While South Africa still has copious social problems and rampant inequality to address, their 24-year-old Constitution written post-Apartheid has been hailed by many for their explicit right to housing, health care, food, water, social security, and education, along with an independent judiciary (Sunstein). Although Chile has yet to rewrite its new Constitution, based on the social causes that sparked reform, it is conceivable that its new document will model South Africa’s and consist of positive rights. Perhaps one day the US can follow suit.

What the Constitution Means to Me prompts audiences to think from within the penumbra and consider their role in the wavering powers of the Constitution. As Schreck transforms from a hopeful child ignorantly yearning to be a part of the Constitution to an adult who acknowledges how the Constitution excludes her, the audience grows with her and learns the details of the nuanced, but deeply flawed document. Portraying herself as a highly personable and relatable figure that audiences live vicariously through, Schreck crafts a strong argument in favor of rethinking the Constitution through detailed storytelling. With the skills acquired through Schreck’s lectures, audiences approach the final debate with a critical lens, then act as their own legislators to model a true democracy. Our Constitution is clinging to a history of oppression while also yearning for liberation. What the Constitution Means to Me indicates that despite being rooted in a penumbra between two deeply divided Americans, successful international revolutions prove Constitutional reform in the US is within reach.

Works Cited

Bonnefoy, Pascale. “'An End to the Chapter of Dictatorship': Chileans Vote to Draft a NewConstitution.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Oct. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/world/americas/chile-constitution-plebiscite.html

Schreck, Heidi. What the Constitution Means to Me. Performance by Heidi Schreck, Amazon Prime, 2020, www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B08KRTCDR3/ref=atv_hm_hom_1_c_iEgOEZ_2_4.

Sunstein, Cass R. John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, 2001, Social and Economic Rights? Lessons from South Africa.

“The Demographics of the Broadway Audience 2018-2019.” The Broadway League, Nov. 2019, www.broadwayleague.com/research/research-reports/.