Thank you for your interest.
This Amendment began with a simple observation: across political lines, consistent polling data show that a substantial majority of Americans support structural reforms such as fiscal accountability, term limits, transparency, and protections for earned benefits.
The central question became how such reforms might be secured in a manner capable of enduring beyond shifting political majorities. From that question, the Amendment emerged through an extended process of research, consultation, modeling, critique, and revision conducted over an eight-month period beginning in mid-2025.
The work of Professor Sanford V. Levinson, University of Texas School of Law, provided important scholarly context. In Our Undemocratic Constitution (2006), he identifies structural barriers to democratic responsiveness; in Framed (2012), he examines how constitutional design shapes governance outcomes; and in Constitutional Faith (2011), he explores the tension between constitutional reverence and the need for structural reform.
These works sharpen the question of whether meaningful structural reform can emerge within the constraints of the Article V process.
Retired Justice Stephen Breyer’s Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism (2024) also informed aspects of the drafting approach. Justice Breyer emphasizes that, in the absence of limiting or controlling language, constitutional provisions may be interpreted in ways not originally anticipated, underscoring the importance of clarity and structural precision.
The objective of Amendment XXVIII is straightforward: to provide Americans who support structural reform with a coordinated and durable path to secure those reforms through constitutional amendment. Only an amendment can ensure that structural protections cannot be reversed by political majorities or short-term political pressures.
The drafting process emphasized clarity, enforceability, and structural guardrails. Particular care was taken to reduce ambiguity that could invite unintended judicial expansion or contraction of its provisions. Detailed internal cross-references and defined terms are intended to make the Amendment clear, consistent and administrable.
Early and intermediate drafts were shared confidentially with constitutional scholars, attorneys experienced in Supreme Court litigation, certain current and former elected officials, and individuals across the political spectrum. Consistent with assurances of confidentiality and academic independence, the names of those who provided comments are not published, and no endorsement is implied. Any views expressed in the final text are solely those of the principal drafters.
Extensive public scholarship, government data, fiscal reports, and historical materials were reviewed during drafting. Thousands of pages of legal, fiscal, and historical documentation were analyzed and cross-referenced. Financial modeling was conducted to test fiscal provisions under multiple economic scenarios.
Barbara Lezynski, M.A. (Finance), Columbia University, contributed substantially to the financial modeling and fiscal validation of the Amendment’s budgetary framework. Her work helped evaluate fiscal balance scenarios while protecting earned benefits and avoiding undue burden on American households.
The principal drafter attended law school and later worked in real estate development and finance, drafting complex legal and financial instruments in collaboration with licensed attorneys. That background informed the emphasis on precision, practical administration, and internal enforcement mechanisms throughout the Amendment.
This project remains open to continued scholarly critique and refinement. The text is offered in the spirit of serious constitutional reform and public accountability.
Brookings, Oregon
February 2026