Playboy Online Articles ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT
   rising stars | celeb photographer | woman on the verge | dotcomversation | movies | dvds | music | games | books


Playboy: Many people would argue that constitutional amendments are a very drastic way to handle the issues you raise in A More Perfect Union. Why are they the way to go?

Jesse Jackson Jr.: There are two groups of Americans who have experienced their freedom by amending the Constitution. There is literally one America, a slave society, on one side of the 13th Amendment, and a different America on the other side of the 13th Amendment. There is a second-class political status for women on one side of the 19th Amendment and a different America for women on the other side of the 19th Amendment. Why constitutional amendments? Because they are longer lasting and they set high goals that the country must reach at any moment in American history. Legislation changes, it can be repealed, it can be ruled unconstitutional. So what is a high maximum bar that we can set so that every generation regardless of the political times must continuously meet on behalf of every single American? There is no such standard quite like the Constitution. And I argue that who is better to make this case than African Americans and women who have experienced their freedom by changing our founding document.

PB: Because your book is so different from what most politicians are saying, do you fear any backlash?

JJ: I suspect there probably will be a backlash. But there could also be a significant frontlash, and that frontlash could set our nation on the course of making the country better for every single American. We tried to elevate the goals in A More Perfect Union to those basic fundamental American values that are beyond race, sex and class that we all identify with. For example, all of us believe in some way, shape or form that every single American should have some form of health coverage. But all Americans tend to get confused and lost over the means. How do we get there? Conservatives argue a medical savings account, a free market approach. Democrats argue universal and comprehensive coverage. I simply argue that we need a fundamental goal that is elevated to the level of the Constitution for which different strategies can be argued and debated over. But we have to be achieving under law, arguably under constitutional law, the goal.

PB: If you had to pick one of your amendments, which is most important?

next

01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05 · 06 · 07 · 08