VENTREM

Living Under a Constitution That Does Not Protect You

Historically the United States Constitution has failed the most vulnerable people. In Heidi Schreck’s play “What the Constitution Means to Me” she commentates on the lack of protection provided by the United States Constitution. Schreck points out the clauses that are meant to protect all people in the United States, and how the Supreme Court has historically failed to use them to protect women and other minorities from the prejudice, discrimination, and violence against them.

The main issue Schreck discusses is the lack of constitutional protection for women against violence. In her discussion of the constitution Schreck questions “What … it mean[s] if this document offers no protection against the violence of men”(30). She goes on to cite that “since the year 2000, more American women have been killed by their male partners than Americans have died in the war on terror - including 9/11”(30). To put that into perspective, 9/11 and the war on terror killed 12,085 Americans, using the lower end of the death count. Meaning that in 17 years more than twelve thousand women were killed by their male partners. Schreck reiterates that this “is only the number of women who have been killed by the men who supposedly love them” and not the total number of women murdered since 2000(30).

This is not a new phenomenon either; across history women have faced violence from their male partners. One might expect that a country like America, that was founded on the ideals of freedom, would have some form of federal law to protect women. However, that is not the case; in fact, the supreme court has historically shut down laws meant to protect women.

To give an example of this failure to protect women from violence Schreck cites Jessica Lenahan v. Castle Rock where “ the city appealed, took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. And this court, led by Antonin Scalia, overturned her case, killed the Colorado law, and gutted the Violence Against Women Act by ruling that the police had no constitutional obligation to protect Jessica or her daughters [sic]” (28). This is particularly horrifying because the supreme court essentially ruled that the police do not need to do their job of protecting all people.

This is also only one of the times the supreme court used a case to shut down or overturn legislation meant to protect women. For example, in United States v. Morrison parts of the Violence Against Women Act were ruled unconstitutional due to the Commerce Clause of Amendment XIV, § 5. The judges used the Commerce Clause to rule that women could not sue their attackers in federal court because Congress only holds power over activities of economic nature. Rather than defending women, the supreme court determined that women could not even sue their attackers federally. Using the Commerce Clause, the supreme court sided with a man who was an alleged rapist, showing the court’s disregard for the safety of women.

Schreck also brings up the Equal Rights Act, explaining that “we [have] been trying to pass the Equal Rights Amendment for the past 100 years”(62). The first section of this proposed amendment states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”(United States House of Representatives). If this amendment were to be passed it would ensure equal rights for women under the law. However, this amendment has still not been ratified by the required number of states. Without this amendment the United States Constitution never explicitly states that women are equal to men under the law. This allows for the continued disregard of women and the violence they face.

Without this legislation courts can continue to make decisions like those made in Jessica Lennahan v. Castle Rock and United States v. Morrison. While there is still a lack of congressional protection for women in the United States, courts will continue to fail to protect women and the cycle of violence will repeat itself. This is what Schreck is trying to bring light to; the statistics she brings up and court cases she mentions could be different if the United States Constitution provided the protection women need. So long as the constitution still “offers no protection against the violence of men”(30) the issues Schreck points out will continue to be prevalent today for all women in the United States.

While there is no fix-all for the constitution, Schreck suggests continued protest and resistance, along with replacement of the people currently in power. One of the ways Schreck describes to combat the failings of the Constitution is something called covert resistance. Schreck describes covert resistance as “the idea that seemingly passive, victim-like behaviors, people-pleasing behaviors, may actually be the sanest response to living in a violent culture. A culture, and a country, that is making it clear every single day, it has no interest in protecting you [sic]”(32-38). Covert resistance is one of the safest ways for most people to push for change. When there is a fear for safety small acts of resistance through actions that do not seem like resistance can be the most impactful. Many people who live in dangerous situations can only push for change through small, nearly invisible, actions. Not everyone can protest or go to court, so covert resistance becomes one of the most powerful forms of resistance, especially when done in mass.

Schreck also alludes to potentially replacing the people with power over the constitution in order to create a new Positive-Rights Constitution, as a potential solution. She explains that “the people who have always been in power, always dominated, always oppressed — men, white people — will continue to dominate and oppress [sic]”(40). She continues by stating that “the problem with making an all-new "positive-rights" Constitution is that we [would] still have to trust the people interpreting”(40). Schreck is pointing out the main reason change struggles to happen. When the people with the power to actually make change do not want or do not fight for change, change cannot happen. The most likely way change can occur is through putting people who want change, minorities such as women and people of color, in positions of power where they can make change.

Schreck also brings up one of the reasons people are hesitant to put new people in power: the fear that even if the people in power are replaced, the replacements will still fight against change. This is a rational concern because people can lie, and even someone who promises change may not live up to their promises. This has been a struggle across history; since people who seek out power often do anything they can to obtain power, they tend to provide empty promises. This can lead to a cycle of leaders promising change but continuously falling flat on their promises, so no change ever occurs.

In the end, Schreck suggests that people continue to fight for a better constitution as they have done for centuries because “democracy is not something that happens to us because we magically change a piece of paper. Democracy is something we have to make happen, we have to fight for, every single day[sic]”(54). She encourages people to “get involved. Protest. Put pressure on [their] reps. Or … run for office! [Because] no one [is] coming to save us, [so] we have to save ourselves”(54). This method of pushing for change, while strenuous and sometimes dangerous, has been proven to work throughout history.

Protest is how people have fought for everything from women’s right to vote to the civil rights movement to freedom over reproductive rights. While this method can be dangerous, especially in modern day with the police and military using AI and other technology to target protesters, it is effective. Historically the way people have made change is through pressuring the people in power into making that change. It is exhausting and can take years, if not centuries, to actually achieve change, but if enough people go out and fight for change there will eventually be change. This is ultimately, Schreck’s primary solution to the failings of our constitution. The people hold the power to change the constitution, and if they fight for it, change will happen eventually. When “no one [is] coming to save us,”, we have to make change happen ourselves(54).

Changing the Constitution is an extremely difficult task. There are layers of government that any amendment must go through to become a part of our constitution, and even still they must be ratified by three-fourths of the States. I agree with Schreck that protest and putting pressure on the people in power is probably the best way to fight for change. As previously stated, protesting has been proven to cause change, even if it is slow change. However, I believe the only way to truly ensure change that will last is through completely reconstructing our government. The United States government works on a system made centuries ago that struggles to work in the modern day. Even still, a complete reset of our government is highly unlikely. Historically it tends to fail.

In my experience our best bet is to keep protesting and bringing international spotlight to the issue. While we cannot directly cause change, international spotlight on our government and its failings can force change. In the modern day, spotlighting issues seems to be the best way to make a change. With the internet, when enough people share an issue the whole world can see the issue. When the world has its eyes on an issue it puts greater pressure on the people in power to provide a proper solution. All in all, I believe that amplifying the solutions we have always used to cause change using the internet is one of the best ways we can cause change.

I chose to write about “What the Constitution Means to Me” because it was the play that really stood out to me. Out of all the plays this was the only one where I had a physical reaction to one of the lines. While the play did not necessarily change my thinking, it did change how I explain my thinking in regards to women’s rights and safety.

One of the key moments in the play for me was when Schreck is talking about her experience during freshman year of college. She was in the car with a boy and he had made a move on her, the part that stood out most to me was when she said “I remember having this kind of sick feeling in the pit of my stomach and then this fleeting thought - so quick, I almost can’t put it into language. But if I had to say it out loud, it would sound something like ‘stay alive.’[sic]”(31). While we were watching this part of the play I became physically nauseous and felt the sort of tightness in my chest I get when I am close to a panic attack. When you are raised as “female” you are taught, either directly or inadvertently, that at some point a man will try and take advantage of you. I live in fear of that moment, it is amplified by the fact that I have generalized anxiety and major depressive disorder that cause me to catastrophise, but that thought of “stay alive” is constantly in the back of my mind.

Every time I leave the house, even if I am going somewhere that should be safe, like school, or the doctor, I have that through in the back of my head. The thought that today may be the day, that today it will finally happen and things will not be the same. When you have been taught how to defend yourself from someone twice your size, how to get people to notice what is happening to you when nobody cares, it leaves you with that constant dread, that constant fear that you will be the next victim. When “Over half of women and almost one in three men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes”(“About Sexual Violence | Sexual Violence Prevention”), you never forget that it could be you.

That is a major reason I chose to write about “What the Constitution Means to Me”; it hits scarily close to home. While I may no longer identify as a woman, I have the XX chromosome combination that makes me biologically female. I was raised as a girl, in my parents' own way.

This play brought up some thoughts I have always had, but never put into words. Schreck brings up issues that will likely continue to affect me for the rest of my life, and the play gave me a chance to really think about that and put everything into perspective. It shifted my thinking from “what ifs” to the reality that I and so many others have to face.

Writing this essay also solidified that thinking. In the process of writing about Schreck’s play I found myself researching court cases involving women's rights and reading through amendments that I had not read before. Hearing someone else say what you have been thinking about for years makes it have real validity. It makes you feel less crazy when you have had to sit in classrooms full of boys who will continue to argue that women do not need more protection, despite the reality of things. Schreck’s words solidified things that I have always known but never voiced out of fear of those around me. Schreck provides valid reasons for that fear; with every statistic and story she mentions she makes me feel less insane about my seemingly irrational fears. Overall, while the play did not necessarily change my thinking, it solidified it in ways that let me expand my point of view.

 

Works Cited

“About Sexual Violence | Sexual Violence Prevention.” CDC, 23 January 2024, https://www.cdc.gov/sexual-violence/about/index.html. Accessed 14 December 2025.
Schreck, Heidi. “What the Constitution Means to Me”. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e7WohPoHJ9rHXXCU5njGKI5bmin5D8Ax/view. Accessed 12 December 2025.
United States House of Representatives. “PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES” https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg1523.pdf. Accessed 14 December 2025.
Wikipedia. “September 11 attacks - Wikipedia.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks. Accessed 12 December 2025.
Wikipedia. “War on terror - Wikipedia.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror#United_States. Accessed 12 December 2025.
Wikipedia. “United States v. Morrison - Wikipedia.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison#Ruling. Accessed 12 December 2025.

Author's Note

This was a final for a theatre class that I did very well on. I was unsure about adding it to this site in its entirety due to the personal nature of the last few paragraphs. Please note that any stiffness in the formatting is caused by thr requirement for me to make this essay school appropriate and acording to the rubric.