The United States Constitution on Broadway, and What It Means To Us

Podcast: The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Date: May 9, 2019
Host: Dorothy Wickenden (Executive Editor, The New Yorker)
Guest: Heidi Schreck (Playwright and Star, "What the Constitution Means to Me")

Overview

This episode explores the acclaimed Broadway play "What the Constitution Means to Me" with its creator and star, Heidi Schreck. Through Schreck's personal and generational perspective, the discussion probes the US Constitution's language, its shortfalls regarding women and minorities, and its resonance amid current American political crises. The conversation also examines pivotal Supreme Court cases and constitutional amendments, connecting them to everyday lived experience—underscored by humor and humanity.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

Genesis of the Play and Schreck’s Personal Connection

• Heidi Schreck recounts her origins as a constitutional debater:
  • At 15, she delivered speeches about the Constitution for prize money at American Legion halls, ultimately funding her college education (02:10-02:47).
• The play grew out of a personal exploration:
  • Schreck began writing a decade prior, not anticipating its current political relevance:

    "I never imagined it would become as relevant as it is today. I was really looking at something quite personal and... exploring a story that takes place over four generations." (03:46-04:21)

Constitution Through the Eyes of a Teenage Girl

• Schreck’s initial admiration for the document:
  • As a teenager, she viewed it with "a real sense of fairness and justice" and believed it was the world’s greatest political system (04:33-04:57).
• The idealism of youth is contrasted with later critical awareness.

The 9th Amendment and Unenumerated Rights

• Schreck’s fascination with the 9th Amendment:
  • The amendment’s poetic language provides space for unlisted rights:

    "It means just because a certain right is not listed in the Constitution, it doesn't mean you don't have that right." (05:29-06:02)

  • As a 15-year-old, she was "obsessed with this idea that this document was telling me in essence, that there were rights that I might have that are not listed" (06:02-06:26).
• The 'Penumbra' Concept:
  • Schreck discusses Justice Douglas’s idea of constitutional 'penumbras'—shadowy spaces where unspoken rights reside, such as the right to privacy.

    "Penumbra is a space of sort of half light of shadow, talking about how the ninth Amendment suggests that there might be rights... in the shadows that are not articulated by the Constitution." (06:44-07:55)

Women, the Constitution, and Generational Injustice

• The 14th Amendment’s Role and Limitations:
  • Schreck ties her family’s history of domestic and sexual violence to constitutional ambiguity, especially the 14th Amendment and its equal protection promises.
    • Also notes: "The 14th Amendment was the first time that the word male was explicitly written into the Constitution." (08:26-11:01)
• Historical context with Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s warning:
  • Stanton presciently feared inserting "male" would set back women’s rights for a century:

    "If the word male was inserted into the Constitution, it would take women a century to get it out again." (11:01-11:53)

Supreme Court Cases: Gender, Rights, and Privacy

• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):
  • The case made birth control legal for married couples, with the majority opinion relying on the 9th Amendment and the concept of a right to privacy (13:01-13:33).
  • An all-male Court debated women’s bodies, revealing incongruities:

    "There were no women's voices in this recording at all... brought home for me how ludicrous it was for this decision... to be made by all men." (14:47-15:12)

• Negative vs. Positive Rights:
  • The US Constitution largely protects from government intrusion ('negative rights') instead of granting entitlements or protections ('positive rights'), unlike other modern constitutions.

    "It was considered... a neutral document. Designed to protect us from the tyranny of... government." (15:33-18:28)

Castle Rock v. Gonzalez and Limits of Constitutional Protection

• Recounting the case:
  • Schreck discusses Castle Rock, where the Supreme Court ruled police weren't obligated to enforce a restraining order after tragedy struck:

    "[Castle Rock v. Gonzalez]... said she was not constitutionally entitled to this police protection." (15:33-18:28)

  • Challenges the neutrality and originalism of the Constitution, highlighting its white, male, property-owning origins.

Resonance in the Trump Era and Audience Reactions

• Schreck avoids direct reference to Trump, preferring broader resonance:
  • The audience's mood shifts based on current events: Kavanaugh hearings intensified emotion; proposed changes to 'birthright citizenship' drew spontaneous applause (19:00-20:52).
  • The play ends with a participatory debate on whether to abolish or keep the Constitution, affected by contemporary sentiment.

The Play’s Purpose: Solace, Community, and Reflection

• Schreck refrains from delivering a didactic message:
  • She hopes the play gives solace, provokes questions, and creates a space for community and reflection:

    "The only thing I hope for people is that it one gives them solace if they're grappling with something similar and also maybe awakens in them the same questions that I've been grappling with." (21:02-22:34)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On searching for personal meaning in the Constitution:

  "Our Constitution doesn't tell you all the rights that you have because it doesn't know." – Heidi Schreck (06:26)

• On the absence of women in constitutional adjudication:

  "There were no women's voices in this recording at all... how ludicrous it was for this decision... to be made by all [men]." – Heidi Schreck (14:47)

• On the flaw of originalism:

  "If you don't take steps to create positive protections... then that document will keep drifting toward its original intent..." – Heidi Schreck (17:50)

• On audience reactions in times of political crisis:

  "The subtext of the play changes every night, and what people are bringing into the play changes." – Heidi Schreck (20:40)

• On the play’s enduring goal:

  "Just like the ability to show up in a room every night and think through what's going on in our country... it's made me a much happier person than I was two years ago when I was just scrolling through Twitter in despair on my sofa." – Heidi Schreck (22:19)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Heidi Schreck’s teenage constitutional contest origins: 02:10-02:47
• Personal roots and intentions for the play: 03:34-04:21
• The 9th Amendment and unenumerated rights: 05:19-07:55
• The 14th Amendment and women’s rights history: 08:26-11:01
• Schreck on Griswold v. Connecticut and the right to privacy: 13:01-15:12
• Negative vs. positive rights; Castle Rock case: 15:33-18:28
• Audience reactions and political context: 19:00-20:52
• Schreck on community, solace, and reflection: 21:02-22:34

Conclusion

This episode offers a rich exploration of "What the Constitution Means to Me," tying together constitutional history, Supreme Court case law, and deeply personal and generational experiences. Schreck delivers incisive commentary on the document’s poetic ambiguities, foundational exclusions, and its very real impact on American lives—especially women’s. The play and the episode together prompt listeners to reconsider the Constitution, its evolution, and what justice means in today’s America.