Constitutions are privileged creations, representing the highest principles of law that a nation upholds. They are the documents and the set of ideas and principles from which all other laws proceed. Both legally and socially, they are the foundations on which nations are built, and they must be upheld with their significance in mind.

Constitutions around the world often come with “entrenched clauses,” which prevent an amendment from being passed, or “eternity clauses,” which cannot be altered, amended or repealed. Their purpose is to serve as the permanent philosophical foundation of all future laws, regardless of changing times or shifting ideological norms. Democracies such as France, Turkey, Italy and Germany all have clauses in their constitutions that are unamendable protections for their systems of republic. Further liberties, including human dignity, the separation of powers and independence of courts, are also protected under these clauses.

The U.S. Constitution has practically no such clauses. Because of this, it cannot protect itself from political interventions, which is a danger to the integrity and sustainability of law and order in this country.

Legally speaking, none of its laws and principles related to justice, equality or citizenship are immune to change. On the surface, this may not seem like an issue. After all, amendments are always necessary to reform laws and keep them up to date.

However, in this case, having essential provisions such as the Bill of Rights or the republican form of government not being entrenched, especially in the current political environment, is a risk that should not exist at all.

The dangers of an exploitable constitution lie in its potential for meddling. Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel’s alleged remark about the U.S. Constitution from 1947 is a good example of this situation. According to the story, Gödel said during his citizenship application that he could prove how the U.S. Constitution is logically inconsistent and could facilitate the declaration of a dictatorship. We have no evidence about which exact part of the Constitution he was referring to, but two separate points suggest that such a danger does indeed exist.

First, as a probable weakness, Article V of the Constitution, which outlines the process for constitutional amendments, is by itself not an entrenched clause and is thus subject to itself. This means that if Article V is amended to shift the power to control the Constitution away from Congress and the courts, the entire body of the Constitution can subsequently be altered or even removed.

The second point, in relation to this hypothetical weakness, is that Gödel himself would’ve known from experience that such exploits are possible and have been done before. Gödel fled what we now know as Austria in 1939, at the time a part of Nazi Germany, and settled in the United States to avoid persecution. Austria, before that point, had become a fascist dictatorship precisely as a result of an authoritarian takeover, a forced rewriting of the constitution and the dismissal of the parliament, all of which facilitated the creation of a dictatorial rule.

Given Gödel’s assumptions and background, we can construct a hypothetical scenario based on the U.S. Constitution and its weaknesses. The ongoing issue of raids against immigrants, arrests of politicians and the use of military forces in cities creates the kind of setting Gödel had witnessed in Austria. We can therefore imagine a scenario where the U.S. president forces a session of the Congress, ideally while the opposition is arrested, exiled or prevented from entering the Capitol under martial law, and forces a vote on amending Article V through the House and the Senate.

Assuming that the opposition cannot resist the arrests or cannot launch a large protest, the assembled Congress, formed of loyalists and the subdued, would be forced to amend Article V, so that, hypothetically, the Constitution could be amended without Congressional approval, perhaps solely through the authority of the executive branch.

From that moment forth, much like what happened in Austria, the U.S. Constitution would become a defunct document, bypassed by the authority of the President. In our timeline, Austria had its constitution overturned and its parliament dissolved through a series of violent clashes between radical groups in the country. This was later used as an excuse to grant far-reaching “emergency powers” to the Austrian Chancellor, setting the stage for a dictatorial regime that further facilitated the rise of fascism in Europe.

This was Gödel’s warning to the United States: improperly defined rules that are unprotected from political meddling are a threat to the continuity of democracy.

The current political discourse is marked by breaches of liberty and individual rights under the law, making it more necessary than ever to entrench laws in the Constitution.

Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.