Jacobin60%

An Unchangeable Constitution? 73%

By Jill Lepore0%

7/2/2026, 2:17:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Authority, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 53.7% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 1,062 faulty-reasoning hits from 270 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65% and a BS Rank of 73% (6,014 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.50% of the article peer group.

The US Constitution is “not a living document,” Justice Antonin Scalia once said. 
“It’s dead, dead, dead.” 
In her Pulitzer Prize–winning book We the People: A History of the U.S. 
Constitution, Harvard historian Jill Lepore shows that the document’s demise came slowly. 
Before originalists like Scalia put the final nail in the coffin, Americans embraced and then abandoned the project of keeping the Constitution alive through mass politics. 
The Framers, Lepore argues, wanted the Constitution to evolve; that’s why they included an amendment process in Article V. 
Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Americans channeled this “philosophy of amendment” into energetic movements for constitutional change. 
There were some successes  the direct election of senators, women’s suffrage  but the stringent requirements of Article V resulted in one of the lowest amendment rates in the world. 
From the mid-twentieth century onward, progressives increasingly sought relief from the Supreme Court, entrusting nine unelected judges with the task of keeping the Constitution up to date. 
The last time the United States meaningfully amended the Constitution was in 1971. 
That same year, Robert Bork outlined the modern doctrine of originalism. 
For Lepore, originalism represents the institutionalization of a strain of constitutional conservatism that developed in response to the long, popular struggle for amendment justice. 
The Left’s retreat to the courtroom had given constitutional conservatives the initiative; by putting on robes and picking up gavels, they could not only stifle progressive constitutional reform but advance their own radical project. 
“The Fifth Article was meant as a constitutional door, open to the people,” Lepore writes. 
“After 1971, that door slammed shut.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.9%Jill Lepore: 4.0%Jacobin: 5.8%Confirmation Bias15.9%This article: 4.1%Jill Lepore: 2.2%Jacobin: 0.4%Anchoring Bias4.1%This article: 11.5%Jill Lepore: 2.9%Jacobin: 2.6%Availability Heuristic11.5%This article: 8.9%Jill Lepore: 2.2%Jacobin: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic8.9%This article: 11.9%Jill Lepore: 3.0%Jacobin: 1.7%Hindsight Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Jill Lepore: 19.5%Jacobin: 6.8%Framing Effect5.9%This article: 2.2%Jill Lepore: 0.6%Jacobin: 0.3%Loss Aversion2.2%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 1.8%Jacobin: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.6%Jacobin: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 45.2%Jill Lepore: 13.7%Jacobin: 8.1%Negativity Bias45.2%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 22.6%Jill Lepore: 8.8%Jacobin: 2.0%In-Group Bias22.6%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 3.1%Jacobin: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Jill Lepore: 2.3%Jacobin: 1.5%Halo Effect9.3%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Jill Lepore: 1.2%Jacobin: 0.8%Recency Bias4.8%This article: 4.8%Jill Lepore: 1.2%Jacobin: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 3.1%Jacobin: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 26.7%Jill Lepore: 7.9%Jacobin: 3.2%Appeal to Authority26.7%This article: 10.0%Jill Lepore: 5.6%Jacobin: 2.7%False Dilemma10.0%This article: 12.6%Jill Lepore: 3.1%Jacobin: 1.2%Slippery Slope12.6%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 33.0%Jill Lepore: 10.0%Jacobin: 8.0%Hasty Generalization33.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.7%Jill Lepore: 3.7%Jacobin: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion3.7%This article: 7.0%Jill Lepore: 1.8%Jacobin: 1.6%Begging the Question7.0%This article: 53.7%Jill Lepore: 14.4%Jacobin: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)53.7%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.2%Jill Lepore: 0.6%Jacobin: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.2%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 9.6%Jill Lepore: 2.4%Jacobin: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy9.6%This article: 10.4%Jill Lepore: 2.6%Jacobin: 1.4%Unattributed Quote10.4%This article: 14.1%Jill Lepore: 7.1%Jacobin: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection14.1%This article: 19.3%Jill Lepore: 10.4%Jacobin: 11.2%Biased Writer Voice19.3%This article: 12.6%Jill Lepore: 3.1%Jacobin: 3.2%Indoctrination12.6%This article: 22.6%Jill Lepore: 19.8%Jacobin: 7.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias22.6%This article: 8.9%Jill Lepore: 2.2%Jacobin: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

270 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers23%attributed speech209writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageJustice Antonin Scalia • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageJill Lepore • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJill Lepore • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageJill Lepore • 15 words • 100.0% coverageJill Lepore • 6 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jill Lepore

100%flagged-word coverage
57 attributed words93% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Politically Right Leaning +42.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jill Lepore: 42.1%42.1%Quote-first Misdirection+30.6 ptsWriter: 6.2%Jill Lepore: 36.8%36.8%Politically Left Leaning B-29.2 ptsWriter: 29.2%Jill Lepore: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+20.1 ptsWriter: 6.2%Jill Lepore: 26.3%26.3%Biased Writer Voice+1.9 ptsWriter: 19.1%Jill Lepore: 21.1%21.1%Indoctrination-16.3 ptsWriter: 16.3%Jill Lepore: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.