The Unyielding Power of Grassroots Activism in Shaping Constitutional Meaning

The Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell ruling, which granted same-sex couples the right to marry in 2015, has often been celebrated as a triumph of constitutional interpretation. However, beneath this triumph lies a more nuanced story – one that highlights the enduring power of grassroots activism in shaping the country’s understanding of its founding document.

Popular constitutionalism is a phenomenon that refers to how ordinary Americans have influenced the meaning of the Constitution outside the confines of the Supreme Court. At its core, popular constitutionalism posits that the Constitution is not merely a static document but rather a living entity that can be interpreted and reinterpreted by citizens through their collective actions.

The campaign for equal marriage offers a compelling case study in this regard. Activists were not simply waiting for the courts to act; instead, they embarked on an ambitious effort to build support from the ground up – knocking on doors, lobbying lawmakers, and engaging in grassroots organizing. As Marc Solomon, one of the architects of the movement, notes, activists persisted despite repeated defeats, convinced that their cause was just and that the Constitution’s guarantees of liberty and equality applied to same-sex couples as well.

The campaign’s successes can be attributed in part to the tireless efforts of activists like Marc Solomon, who were willing to challenge prevailing attitudes on marriage. However, it also highlights a broader trend – one where ordinary Americans are increasingly taking matters into their own hands when it comes to interpreting and enforcing the Constitution.

Popular constitutionalism can produce results that may not always be palatable, as Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern point out in an episode of Slate’s By the People podcast. The Obergefell ruling itself was a direct response to years of grassroots organizing and activism. But what about cases like D.C. v. Heller, where the court’s decision to enshrine an individual right to bear arms has been widely criticized as contrary to public opinion?

The tension between popular constitutionalism and judicial review raises important questions about the role of ordinary Americans in shaping the Constitution’s meaning. Can grassroots activism truly effect change, or is it subject to the whims of the courts? What happens when popular pressure produces a ruling that may not align with the majority’s preferences?

These are precisely the kinds of questions that the campaign for equal marriage highlights – and ones that continue to resonate today. The Constitution is not simply a document of abstract principles but rather a living instrument that can be shaped by the collective actions of ordinary Americans.

In recent years, we have seen the rise of social movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, which have sought to challenge prevailing attitudes on issues ranging from workplace harassment to police brutality. These efforts demonstrate that popular constitutionalism is not limited to any particular issue or cause – but rather represents a broader impulse to reclaim the Constitution as a living document that reflects the values and aspirations of ordinary Americans.

As we continue to explore the complex interplay between grassroots activism, judicial review, and constitutional interpretation, one thing becomes clear: the power of popular constitutionalism lies not in its ability to produce uniform results but rather in its capacity to challenge prevailing attitudes and push the country toward a more just and equitable understanding of its founding document.