Should We Rewrite the Constitution? – What the Constitution Means to Me

Nov 13, 2024 by Two Sues On the Aisle

By Two Sues on the Aisle, Susie Rosenbluth and Sue Weston

The George Street Playhouse’s production of What the Constitution Means to Me a 2017 American play by Heidi Scheck was perfectly timed running just before the presidential election. The show is largely autobiographical, exploring Schneck’s relationship with the Constitution. It begins in 1989 when Scheck is a 15-year-old competing in debates at the American Legion, winning enough to pay for college tuition, and believing in the wisdom of the Constitution. Over time, her awareness of the flaws became more pronounced. She questions the wisdom of the founding fathers asking whether we should scrap the Constitution and begin again.

Join A Personal Conversation

The show opens as Heidi (Kate Baldwin) strides down the aisle addressing the audience. The show which runs approximately an hour and forty-five minutes (without intermission) consists of a series of vignettes and asides, first as Heidi, but later she steps out of character to become herself, Kate Baldwin from Maplewood New Jersey. She is joined by The Legionnaire (Nicholas Rodriguez) who starts as the timekeeper for the competitions, before stepping out of character and becomes a nontoxic male presence.

Transforming from performer to individual personalizes the stories the audience is immediately drawn in. We felt this was extremely effective. During the performance we attended, several audience members responded as though they were part of a dialogue, rather than watching a show.

The Constitution Does Not Address Women’s Rights

What the Constitution Means to Me addresses women’s rights, immigration, and domestic abuse. The show is deeply personal, sharing stories of the abuse her mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother faced. She is proud that her mother and aunt were whistleblowers speaking up against abuse. Her great-grandmother came to the U.S. after being purchased as a wife in a magazine. Sheck faults the Constitution for failing to protect women.

Our Constitution does not consider the rights of women and children. Schreck suggests that our founding fathers, who were men, made laws governing a country run by men, a bias in culture reflected in our Constitution.

Heidi (Kate Baldwin) – (photograph by T. Charles Erickson)

Research and Information

The show goes beyond personal stories, Sheck researched the issues and rulings, sharing the case of the Town of Castle Rock versus Gonzales, where a woman sued the police department for failing to enforce a restraining order. This failure allowed her husband to abduct and murder their three children. The case went to the Supreme Court whose decision centered around the meaning of the word ‘shall’. She shares an audio clip of their debate which is a soulless glib discussion.

The Constitution lists negative rights (protection from unconstitutional government actions) instead of positive rights (ensuring certain rights will be fulfilled), suggesting it should be abolished and rewritten.

(Photograph by T. Charles Erickson)

The Debate

This positions the audience for the final segment, a debate with a ‘high-school student’ about whether to keep or rewrite the Constitution. It feels like a genuine debate, rather than a scripted performance (kudos to both actresses). Youthful exuberance wins. The student expresses her belief that the Constitution is a good governing document that can benefit from some modification. [Bringing us full circle, as we saw the same passion in Heidi when she was younger].

The high-school student is pronounced victorious! We should keep the Constitution. The show ends with personal questions following the debate, where Kate and the student get to know one another.

Our Reaction

We found the format of this two-person performance engaging, connecting with the audience, who voted on the winner of the debate. However, the ‘getting-to-know-you’ ending when the performers answered personal questions was less than satisfying. It unnecessarily lengthened an already drawn-out performance.

Overall, the messaging is strong and poignant – the Constitution does not adequately address women’s rights, with the Supreme Court arguing about the meaning of words rather than addressing the issues. But, it does provide the ability to evolve. The founding fathers established a process for amending the Constitution (which has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992, beginning with the Bill of Rights.) While no document can be complete and timeless, the Constitution provides a solid foundation, with the ability to modify it as necessary.

The acting is so believable, especially when Baldwin is playing herself. Her performance felt genuine and extemporaneous rather than scripted. Selecting a format that shifted from actors playing a role to individuals sharing their stories builds intimacy and relatability. Including the audience in choosing the winner was inspired (though we hope the outcome is always the same).

We agree that the Constitution is a living breathing document, some sections may be antiquated, but overall, it serves us well. We enjoyed the premise and format of this provocative performance, and as always, George Street Playhouse came through again.