The book suggests that the Constitution has been both a tool of liberation and oppression. How does Lepore hold these opposing truths simultaneously as she explores Democracy’s Fragility in the Face of Inequality? Evaluate the effectiveness of this dual perspective. Cite specific examples from the text to support your argument.

How does Lepore address the relationship between violence and constitutional change? Analyze one instance where violence precipitated legal or political transformation.

Examine Lepore’s use of historical figures such as James Madison, Frederick Douglass, or Abraham Lincoln. How does she complicate traditional portrayals of these individuals? What purpose does this complexity serve?

How does Lepore use storytelling and narrative history to make constitutional ideas accessible and meaningful? Analyze how her narrative choices influence the reader’s understanding of abstract legal concepts.

Lepore presents conflict—not consensus—as a driving force in constitutional history. What rhetorical devices or literary techniques does she employ to discuss the positive impact of disagreement on democracy? Evaluate the risks and benefits of her view.

The book challenges the notion that constitutional interpretation is neutral or purely legal. How does Lepore reveal interpretation as a deeply political and moral act? What are the implications of this claim for contemporary debates around Constitutional Interpretation as a Political Pathway?

Lepore frequently situates constitutional debates within broader social and cultural movements. How does she demonstrate that legal change is inseparable from cultural change? Choose one historical moment to illustrate this relationship.

Throughout the text, Lepore interrogates the phrase “We the People.” Who has historically been included in this collective, and who has been excluded? Analyze how the meaning of “the People” has shifted over time and why those shifts matter.