Many countries regularly update their founding laws. But, in the United States, the Constitution has only been amended 27 times in over two centuries – and just once since 1971. Although most Americans agree that the Constitution is essential to protecting liberty, there’s a long-running debate over how it should be interpreted – and how changes should be made.

Some people believe that the document should be interpreted exactly as it is written and that changes should only be made through the formal amendment process. Others argue that the Founding Fathers’ intent should take precedence and that our reading of the document can and should change to reflect new technologies and changing social norms.

Charles Zug, an assistant professor of both Political Science and Constitutional Democracy at MU, explores the competing views. He also discusses how the courts have interpreted the Constitution over the years and why the amendment process has become increasingly difficult.

Zug, who earned his Ph.D. in Government from the University of Texas at Austin, is the author of two books, Demagogues in American Politics and Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Federal Highway Act. His third book, The Mythology of American Federalism, is under contract at Oxford University Press. He’s also the coeditor of a book on separation of powers, which is under contract at the University of Pennsylvania Press.

This program is being held in commemoration of Constitution Week, celebrated annually from September 17-23.