What do you think?
Rate this book
What the Constitution Means to Me
Finalist for the 2019 Pulitzer Prize for Drama
When she was fifteen years old, Heidi Schreck earned money for her college tuition by giving speeches about the U.S. Constitution. Decades later, she traces the effect this document has had on four generations of women in her family. Deftly examining how the United States' founding principles are inextricably linked with our personal lives, Schreck also explores the ways in which their misuse has engendered violence and inherited trauma. With passion and wit, this galvanizing new play acknowledges the ways in which our Constitution has failed us while simultaneously offering hope that we may yet steer ourselves toward a better future.
When she was fifteen years old, Heidi Schreck earned money for her college tuition by giving speeches about the U.S. Constitution. Decades later, she traces the effect this document has had on four generations of women in her family. Deftly examining how the United States' founding principles are inextricably linked with our personal lives, Schreck also explores the ways in which their misuse has engendered violence and inherited trauma. With passion and wit, this galvanizing new play acknowledges the ways in which our Constitution has failed us while simultaneously offering hope that we may yet steer ourselves toward a better future.
96 pages, Paperback
Published February 2, 2021
25 people are currently reading
388 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews
May 10, 2021
Since this was a Pulitzer Prize finalist, and a two time Tony Award nominee (for Schreck as both writer and actor), and after nearly universal rave reviews, I was curious to read the play, despite the somewhat off-putting dry title. Surprisingly, the play is both thought-provoking and quite humorous, and brings up many important points about how the Constitution has both failed us and propped up our ailing democracy.
The first act is the most successful, in which Schreck re-enacts the speech she gave at numerous American Legion halls in order to garner scholarship money for college. She keeps interrupting this to bring in side notes and longer anecdotes about her family, and how the Constitution did not protect her female ancestors from a history of inequality, violence and abuse. Heady stuff and I'm sure it's even more effective onstage.
I found the second half a bit more problematic and diffuse, as Schreck brings on a black female high-school debate champ, and the two of them do a formal debate about whether the Constitution should be retained or abolished. This is supposed to be extemporaneous and allow for much ad-libbing, but in the printed script, two transcripts of actual performances are included - one in which the author argues for, and the other against, the document - and both are at least 80% identical. It also requires a modicum of audience participation, including a vote on who 'won' the debate, and I am never a fan of such.
Nevertheless it's an intriguing play, and I suppose I am going to have to use my free 30-day trial of Amazon Prime in order to watch the filmed performance, as the trailer makes it look much livelier than it is on the page: https://www.amazon.com/What-Constitut...
The first act is the most successful, in which Schreck re-enacts the speech she gave at numerous American Legion halls in order to garner scholarship money for college. She keeps interrupting this to bring in side notes and longer anecdotes about her family, and how the Constitution did not protect her female ancestors from a history of inequality, violence and abuse. Heady stuff and I'm sure it's even more effective onstage.
I found the second half a bit more problematic and diffuse, as Schreck brings on a black female high-school debate champ, and the two of them do a formal debate about whether the Constitution should be retained or abolished. This is supposed to be extemporaneous and allow for much ad-libbing, but in the printed script, two transcripts of actual performances are included - one in which the author argues for, and the other against, the document - and both are at least 80% identical. It also requires a modicum of audience participation, including a vote on who 'won' the debate, and I am never a fan of such.
Nevertheless it's an intriguing play, and I suppose I am going to have to use my free 30-day trial of Amazon Prime in order to watch the filmed performance, as the trailer makes it look much livelier than it is on the page: https://www.amazon.com/What-Constitut...
November 14, 2022
Experimental Theater as Socio-Political Conversation Starter
This is a well-organized, somewhat experimental play that deals with contemporary American narratives, debates, and contemporary struggles. There are moments when the play becomes meta which at times was effective, but was held back by some characters not being distinct from the "actors" who play them and at times speak in their own capacity qua actors. A great conversation piece for a wide group (even for people outside of America—it can easily serve as a proxy for any democratic country dealing with their founding institutions). That said, the play could be trapped by its time, as it centrally concerns an individual 21st-century woman's reconciliation with a country which has limited her freedom.
Performed by Seattle Rep.
This is a well-organized, somewhat experimental play that deals with contemporary American narratives, debates, and contemporary struggles. There are moments when the play becomes meta which at times was effective, but was held back by some characters not being distinct from the "actors" who play them and at times speak in their own capacity qua actors. A great conversation piece for a wide group (even for people outside of America—it can easily serve as a proxy for any democratic country dealing with their founding institutions). That said, the play could be trapped by its time, as it centrally concerns an individual 21st-century woman's reconciliation with a country which has limited her freedom.
Performed by Seattle Rep.
October 8, 2023
3.3
The play was decent; the script is obviously just the script. I guess I learned a few things, but not life-changing ideas. Schreck does a pretty okay job at pointing out the flaws in the Constitution, although it would be better if it weren’t as cringey. I must confess that the reenactment of her 15-year-old self killed a little part of me. Also, the debate really made me realize how goofy debate is, especially in Parli.
The play was decent; the script is obviously just the script. I guess I learned a few things, but not life-changing ideas. Schreck does a pretty okay job at pointing out the flaws in the Constitution, although it would be better if it weren’t as cringey. I must confess that the reenactment of her 15-year-old self killed a little part of me. Also, the debate really made me realize how goofy debate is, especially in Parli.
Read
September 3, 2025I saw this on stage last night. I attend the theater and read mostly to escape reality. This play took me to confront face to face a lot of the issues I was trying to avoid. It did a good job of taking me where I didn't want to go and of telling me stuff I didn't want to hear. For me the play did a good job of executing the unenjoyable. Because of my personal bias, I'll recuse myself and leave this unrated.
March 20, 2021
Fantastic play! I highly recommend it. It's informative, challenging and dynamic.
August 29, 2022
“What the Constitution Means to Me”
A Broadway play
A version on Amazon Prime for all to see
by Heidi Schreck, Marielle Heller & Cast
A short REVIEW by Ron Housley
The show may very well be cute; it may be engaging; but it promotes one of today’s most destructive tropes, heaping wreckage on our once-upon-a-time culture of liberty.
The Amazon Prime version of the show conducts itself an in-depth look at some basic features of the US Constitution, including a look at whether the Constitution itself is to be considered “legitimate,” or whether it should be scrapped altogether.
In all of the show’s ponderings, not one single time did it turn to the matter of Individual Rights, notwithstanding that Individual Rights is a foundational principle of America’s existence. (Sadly, the explicit idea of Individual Rights, while featuring prominently in the Declaration of Independence, is only the implied basis for most of the Constitution which was to follow.)
Instead of an examination of Individual Rights and of what they are and are not, we were regaled with the standard progressive contentions about “positive rights” vs “negative rights.”
“Positive Rights” are, essentially, entitlements to the fruits of other peoples’ effort: the right to education being the right to mandate being taught by somebody else; the right to healthcare being the right to a complex technological service provided by somebody else; the right to housing provided by somebody else; the right to a job provided by somebody else; and so on.
When Individual Rights are framed as “Negative Rights,” the cornerstone of America’s greatness is smeared with the adjective, “negative.” An individual right is essentially a sanction to act on one’s own judgment with the promise that nobody else will be permitted to coercively force one to act differently.
When a person has a “right to his own life,” that means that the person can pursue values of his own choosing, without coercive constraints imposed by others. Protecting that (“negative”) right is perhaps the most “positive” aspect about America’s founding.
* * * * * * * * *
Heidi Schreck finally focuses on an aspect of America’s founding that is far from fundamental or essential: she emphasizes that the US Constitution was cobbled together by white men. However, the essential here is not WHO wrote the law, but WHAT the law said and intended. The law knew that in order to protect an individual’s right to life, that it would have to protect the individual’s right to whatever property he was able to accrue in behalf of sustaining that life.
More than once during the show, Heidi lingered on the point that old white men were involved, implying today’s Critical Theory contention that freedom and rights were merely deliberate mechanisms to give unwarranted privilege to the white, male Framers ---- allowing them to be the ordained oppressors.
I found the show mostly entertaining; but beneath the surface I was constantly reminded of the extent to which contemporary education has disconnected the logical link between our premises and our conclusions (a "right" as always negative and judging a law apart from who its author might be). The point was made more than once that there should be considerable weight given to WHO writes our rules, rather than what the actual rules are.
The hidden message seemed to be: if the laws had been drafted by black women, then we could respect them and obey them, regardless of whether they might have violated anybody’s rights.
The audience for this performance of “What the Constitution Means to Me” was a frightening manifestation of where our culture has gone. They cheered at the suggestion that the Constitution be scrapped in favor of a document which would embrace a 51% majority consensus, even if that consensus called for alienating our unalienable rights.
The irony of cancelling an unalienable right never rose to the level of awareness in the show’s treatment of an otherwise critical issue.
The audience appeared to have no grasp of the role for Individual Rights in the formation of American law. They were entirely prepared to approve any rights-violating entitlement as long as a 51% majority agreed.
It’s not that the audience was explicitly in favor of decimating Individual Rights; it’s that the issue of Individual Rights never enters into their deliberations. If a democratic majority wants to vote away someone’s rights, then they’re all in favor of moving forward. If the mob (i.e., the majority) wants free health care, then they never even give a second thought to whose rights are trashed in bringing that about.
Heidi Schreck cleverly side-steps the critical issue of Individual Rights when she blithely conflates Positive Rights (entitlements) with Negative Rights (protections of liberties). She has ignored the famous statement by Confucius: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” When she refers to an entitlement as a “positive right,” she is clearly not calling the thing by its proper name. Even worse, a “positive right,” by its nature, requires a destruction of an Individual Right (which she then labels a “negative right”).
Ever since FDR articulated his Four Freedoms as including the “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear,” entire generations have been brought up supporting FDR’s call for a “right to economic security.” Entitlements and Rights are hopelessly homogenized in the minds of the audience in this performance. It is frightening to see an important and foundational concept be so thoroughly misapprehended, and then so thoroughly misrepresented.
It was sad to hear a conversation about the Constitution devolve into assigning importance to WHO drafted that document, rather than to the principles incorporated into it.
Modern advocates of a “Living Constitution” appear to be lined up behind the notion that a democratic majority should have the prerogative to overrule and cancel Individual Rights, as long as the overruling be implemented by the majority. That was the final thought this little play left for us to ponder.
A Broadway play
A version on Amazon Prime for all to see
by Heidi Schreck, Marielle Heller & Cast
A short REVIEW by Ron Housley
The show may very well be cute; it may be engaging; but it promotes one of today’s most destructive tropes, heaping wreckage on our once-upon-a-time culture of liberty.
The Amazon Prime version of the show conducts itself an in-depth look at some basic features of the US Constitution, including a look at whether the Constitution itself is to be considered “legitimate,” or whether it should be scrapped altogether.
In all of the show’s ponderings, not one single time did it turn to the matter of Individual Rights, notwithstanding that Individual Rights is a foundational principle of America’s existence. (Sadly, the explicit idea of Individual Rights, while featuring prominently in the Declaration of Independence, is only the implied basis for most of the Constitution which was to follow.)
Instead of an examination of Individual Rights and of what they are and are not, we were regaled with the standard progressive contentions about “positive rights” vs “negative rights.”
“Positive Rights” are, essentially, entitlements to the fruits of other peoples’ effort: the right to education being the right to mandate being taught by somebody else; the right to healthcare being the right to a complex technological service provided by somebody else; the right to housing provided by somebody else; the right to a job provided by somebody else; and so on.
When Individual Rights are framed as “Negative Rights,” the cornerstone of America’s greatness is smeared with the adjective, “negative.” An individual right is essentially a sanction to act on one’s own judgment with the promise that nobody else will be permitted to coercively force one to act differently.
When a person has a “right to his own life,” that means that the person can pursue values of his own choosing, without coercive constraints imposed by others. Protecting that (“negative”) right is perhaps the most “positive” aspect about America’s founding.
* * * * * * * * *
Heidi Schreck finally focuses on an aspect of America’s founding that is far from fundamental or essential: she emphasizes that the US Constitution was cobbled together by white men. However, the essential here is not WHO wrote the law, but WHAT the law said and intended. The law knew that in order to protect an individual’s right to life, that it would have to protect the individual’s right to whatever property he was able to accrue in behalf of sustaining that life.
More than once during the show, Heidi lingered on the point that old white men were involved, implying today’s Critical Theory contention that freedom and rights were merely deliberate mechanisms to give unwarranted privilege to the white, male Framers ---- allowing them to be the ordained oppressors.
I found the show mostly entertaining; but beneath the surface I was constantly reminded of the extent to which contemporary education has disconnected the logical link between our premises and our conclusions (a "right" as always negative and judging a law apart from who its author might be). The point was made more than once that there should be considerable weight given to WHO writes our rules, rather than what the actual rules are.
The hidden message seemed to be: if the laws had been drafted by black women, then we could respect them and obey them, regardless of whether they might have violated anybody’s rights.
The audience for this performance of “What the Constitution Means to Me” was a frightening manifestation of where our culture has gone. They cheered at the suggestion that the Constitution be scrapped in favor of a document which would embrace a 51% majority consensus, even if that consensus called for alienating our unalienable rights.
The irony of cancelling an unalienable right never rose to the level of awareness in the show’s treatment of an otherwise critical issue.
The audience appeared to have no grasp of the role for Individual Rights in the formation of American law. They were entirely prepared to approve any rights-violating entitlement as long as a 51% majority agreed.
It’s not that the audience was explicitly in favor of decimating Individual Rights; it’s that the issue of Individual Rights never enters into their deliberations. If a democratic majority wants to vote away someone’s rights, then they’re all in favor of moving forward. If the mob (i.e., the majority) wants free health care, then they never even give a second thought to whose rights are trashed in bringing that about.
Heidi Schreck cleverly side-steps the critical issue of Individual Rights when she blithely conflates Positive Rights (entitlements) with Negative Rights (protections of liberties). She has ignored the famous statement by Confucius: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” When she refers to an entitlement as a “positive right,” she is clearly not calling the thing by its proper name. Even worse, a “positive right,” by its nature, requires a destruction of an Individual Right (which she then labels a “negative right”).
Ever since FDR articulated his Four Freedoms as including the “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear,” entire generations have been brought up supporting FDR’s call for a “right to economic security.” Entitlements and Rights are hopelessly homogenized in the minds of the audience in this performance. It is frightening to see an important and foundational concept be so thoroughly misapprehended, and then so thoroughly misrepresented.
It was sad to hear a conversation about the Constitution devolve into assigning importance to WHO drafted that document, rather than to the principles incorporated into it.
Modern advocates of a “Living Constitution” appear to be lined up behind the notion that a democratic majority should have the prerogative to overrule and cancel Individual Rights, as long as the overruling be implemented by the majority. That was the final thought this little play left for us to ponder.
October 20, 2022
This text of the play (performance piece? monologue?) is very funny and full of heartbreaking facts. The anecdotes of violence against women and their marginalization is always wrapped in the facts of policy. Women are not considered at all in the Constitution and must fight a hard earned battle for any inch of progress. The Supreme Court (mostly male) ruled that police are not constitutionally required to enforce restraining orders. Therefore police are not liable if a woman dies begging for the court ordered protection against her assailant. There are several stories like this, where women's identity, property and even lives are taken from them, co-signed by policy sanctioned by the Constitution and Supreme Court.
Yet with the humor you get hope. No matter how heartbreaking and despairing the stories and facts are, never once does the author encourage women to give up.
Yet with the humor you get hope. No matter how heartbreaking and despairing the stories and facts are, never once does the author encourage women to give up.
June 22, 2025
4.5 stars (really the missing 0.5 is just because i wanted a little something else out of the ending, though i fully understand why it ends the way that it does and i think that like what i feel is missing happens when you're in the audience seeing the show life. so 5 star play, but 4.5 star reading if that makes sense)
November 15, 2022
Great for a storefront theatre with minimal production budgets.
October 8, 2023
I watched the show in class and read parts of the book for an assignment.
February 23, 2024
a really interesting concept for like the first half of it
November 6, 2025
For some reason I did not comprehend this play after one reading so, setting it aside for a few days and coming back, everything clicked. This is a book club suggestion and it has the potential of providing interesting discussions. I appreciated the historical background included in this play; it helped to get things in my mind more clearly. It would be a fun play to see.
December 22, 2025
I wonder how this play works when Heidi isn't in it? to me, it seems more like the kind of play that's Important to read/watch in schools, but seems less engaging as a theatrical performance... but I guess it would just depend on the performer and how they can handle long blocks of text
September 30, 2023
This diffused every political and social trigger I have with humor, warmth, and intelligence.
November 17, 2025
“or in case of a real attack” 😮💨
November 3, 2025
I so enjoyed reading this humorous and powerful play that I suggested it on a whim for my book club, as something 'different' from the usual. Well, they ended up selecting it for the schedule and now I'm stuck trying to figure out how to lead a thoughtful and productive discussion about it. File this under "what the heck was I thinking"! This may serve as a cautionary tale the next time I say 'what's the worst that can happen' - remember "Constitution"? Oh yeah, we'd better not do it....
Funny, thoughtful, powerful and compelling. Left me with lots to ponder. I meant to see this in the theater, but I think the pandemic got in the way.
Funny, thoughtful, powerful and compelling. Left me with lots to ponder. I meant to see this in the theater, but I think the pandemic got in the way.
June 17, 2023
3.5 stars — I read this play for my Spring 2022 Contemporary Drama (ENGL 363) class. This is a solid play describing playwright Heidi Schreck’s relationship with The Constitution. Schreck’s monologue-writing abilities are exceptional, combining humor with serious topics. I only gave this a lower rating since I’ve never been a huge fan of learning about American history. Nevertheless, it is a well-deserved Finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Drama.
December 23, 2020
I cannot recommend this play highly enough. Read it, watch the filmed performance available on prime, and best yet - go see it! I believe the US national tour is set to resume in 2021.
Read
December 31, 2024This play is a perfect fit for my AP Language class!! It’s moving and funny, and full of incredible rhetorical moves. The final debate is so good!!
July 27, 2021
Again, we don't have time! How long do you think it's gonna take to get a climate change amendment?
Content Warnings: domestic violence, murder, gun violence, abortion, sexual assault.
After hearing nothing but rave reviews, I had very high expectations for What the Constitution Means to Me. Perhaps too high. I want to begin by saying that I do appreciate what this play is attempting to do. It educates, raises awareness, and instills power into it's audience effectively. I do not think it is a bad show.
However, it also falls quite short. Despite her best efforts to bring up people with less privilege than herself, Shreck's topics of focus (women's rights) and language (particularly outdated "folx" and the choice of "people with disabilities" over "disabled people") reveal a position of privilege that is still yet un-examined by the play.
There is also the question of if Broadway, or theatre in general, is the proper venue for this conversation. Theatre is not renowned for it's accessibility, so who is it who is making it to see this show? Is this information and empowerment actually reaching those who are least protected by the constitution, or is it allow those who have very little to fear from most Supreme Court decisions filling seats?
Finally, I am not fond of the structure of this show. I understand the breaks to the fourth wall/ meta-dialogue were likely designed to give the same humanizing effect as the question lightning round, but in my opinion... it doesn't really work. It is not at all my style of play and one of my largest pet peeves.
I would be unlikely to buy tickets to a performance.
August 30, 2021
To play along with the #MrDReads2021 August challenge (read a play script), I chose to read What the Constitution Means to Me by Heidi Schreck, which is coming to Detroit this December, so I thought I’d get a head start.
Synopsis: “When she was fifteen years old, Heidi Schreck earned money for her college tuition by giving speeches about the U.S. Constitution. Decades later, she traces the effect this document has had on four generations of women in her family. Deftly examining how the United States' founding principles are inextricably linked with our personal lives, Schreck also explores the ways in which their misuse has engendered violence and inherited trauma. With passion and wit, this galvanizing new play acknowledges the ways in which our Constitution has failed us while simultaneously offering hope that we may yet steer ourselves toward a better future.”
What Worked: I enjoyed the in-depth analysis of the Constitution, and it was creative to do this through the lens of Schreck’s family history and personal experience. Part II is a debate between the adult Schreck and a high school debater, which was fun and interesting as they debate over whether or not the Constitution should be abolished.
What Didn’t: Not knowing much going into this read, I thought it would be more about Schreck’s high school competition days, when in reality it was way beyond that. As Schreck pops in and out of the story to make connections, it begs whether or not every digression and detailed story from her family history was completely necessary. Some digressions from the other characters probably were not needed.
Rating: I liked it. (: 3/5) I’m rounding up because I’m assuming this is much better to see than to read. I’m still looking forward to the production in December.
Synopsis: “When she was fifteen years old, Heidi Schreck earned money for her college tuition by giving speeches about the U.S. Constitution. Decades later, she traces the effect this document has had on four generations of women in her family. Deftly examining how the United States' founding principles are inextricably linked with our personal lives, Schreck also explores the ways in which their misuse has engendered violence and inherited trauma. With passion and wit, this galvanizing new play acknowledges the ways in which our Constitution has failed us while simultaneously offering hope that we may yet steer ourselves toward a better future.”
What Worked: I enjoyed the in-depth analysis of the Constitution, and it was creative to do this through the lens of Schreck’s family history and personal experience. Part II is a debate between the adult Schreck and a high school debater, which was fun and interesting as they debate over whether or not the Constitution should be abolished.
What Didn’t: Not knowing much going into this read, I thought it would be more about Schreck’s high school competition days, when in reality it was way beyond that. As Schreck pops in and out of the story to make connections, it begs whether or not every digression and detailed story from her family history was completely necessary. Some digressions from the other characters probably were not needed.
Rating: I liked it. (: 3/5) I’m rounding up because I’m assuming this is much better to see than to read. I’m still looking forward to the production in December.
October 2, 2024
“Maybe we shouldn’t think of the Constitution as a crucible, in which we’re all fighting it out together, in which we go in front of a court of nine people to negotiate for our basic human rights, which is what we have been doing for two hundred and thirty years. Because if this is a battle, or even a negotiation, then the people who have always been in power, always dominated, always oppressed—men, white people—will continue to dominate and oppress. Maybe we could think of the Constitution like that first mother, a Constitution that is obligated to actively look out for all of us.”
Really enjoyed this fascinating play, especially after attending a talk where Heidi Schreck spoke about her play and her experience writing it! It does come off as a bit trite at times, but it's also a very powerful play about the document that protects Americans and also often fails us.
And for the record, I don't think that we should abolish the Constitution, but I do think that we should add amendments that reflect our 21st century reality and protect Americans of all genders and races. Will that ever happen in any of our lifetimes? Maybe not, but I do know that it's something worth fighting for.
Really enjoyed this fascinating play, especially after attending a talk where Heidi Schreck spoke about her play and her experience writing it! It does come off as a bit trite at times, but it's also a very powerful play about the document that protects Americans and also often fails us.
And for the record, I don't think that we should abolish the Constitution, but I do think that we should add amendments that reflect our 21st century reality and protect Americans of all genders and races. Will that ever happen in any of our lifetimes? Maybe not, but I do know that it's something worth fighting for.
May 9, 2024
This is a powerful piece. I playful lump this play into the genre of "one-person-show-sorta".
We follow Heidi Schreck (who actually originated the role herself) as she talks about the constitution, injustice towards women and BIPOC individuals, and the role of how power and greed plays into marginalization.
This play is highly political, one large call to action... but as dry and preachy as that sounds, this play is anything but dry and preachy. It is hilarious, heartfelt, heart-wrenching, empathetic, inspiring, and hopeful. Reading this play is fantastic... watching this play is otherworldly. The sense of intimacy and belonging that Schreck makes everyone in the theatre feel is immensely powerful and effective.
I hope to one day see it live instead of as a recording, and if I do get that privilege, I want to hug Heidi Schreck and thank her for the voice she has given to so many people and the joy of her work and sacrifices.
We follow Heidi Schreck (who actually originated the role herself) as she talks about the constitution, injustice towards women and BIPOC individuals, and the role of how power and greed plays into marginalization.
This play is highly political, one large call to action... but as dry and preachy as that sounds, this play is anything but dry and preachy. It is hilarious, heartfelt, heart-wrenching, empathetic, inspiring, and hopeful. Reading this play is fantastic... watching this play is otherworldly. The sense of intimacy and belonging that Schreck makes everyone in the theatre feel is immensely powerful and effective.
I hope to one day see it live instead of as a recording, and if I do get that privilege, I want to hug Heidi Schreck and thank her for the voice she has given to so many people and the joy of her work and sacrifices.
November 1, 2021
This play is as wholly original as its structure. The first act is a recreation of the Constitutional competitions/debates playwright Heidi Schreck participated in as a kid, which the adult Schreck uses as a means of examining the U.S. Constitution; its origins, flaws, and personal connections to Schreck's family. Then, the 2nd act provides the most compelling aspect of this show; an improvised debate between Schreck and a real-life student currently doing these competitions. Because this nightly debate on whether or not to abolish the Constitution changed with each show, this script offers a transcription of two of these performances. Gut-punching, informative, inspiring, infuriating, and brilliant; I highly recommend reading this play for the information, as well as then watching the performance (now streaming!) for the emotion it packs.
September 22, 2025
Makes me long for the days when there was a robust discussion of the evolution of thought about the Constitution and its evolution through amendment and judicial decision, both of them clumsily adapting to societal change. That was before progress became a bad word, and nostalgia to a fictional past became the dominant strain of political thought (a past that is never quite defined, so the tariffs and xenophobia of the nineteenth century can sit easily beside the vision of the muscular post-war economy.
Still, Heidi Schreck deserves all the plaudits possible for bringing political ideals to the theater in an engaging way. Among all the other things it is, perhaps the most remarkable is its uniqueness.
Still, Heidi Schreck deserves all the plaudits possible for bringing political ideals to the theater in an engaging way. Among all the other things it is, perhaps the most remarkable is its uniqueness.
July 6, 2021
Provocative, surprising, moving and infuriating by turns, this highly original work won multiple Best Play honors and a Best Actress Tony nomination for its author. The four-star rating is for the reading experience only--I'm sure in performance this play is five-star all the way. But because of its innovative nature, What the Constitution Means to Me requires a lot of the reader's imagination to bring it to life in one's mind. There's a lot of improvisation and audience interaction in performance, so the printed page cannot do it justice, and the reader is always aware that she's missing some of its genius. But even in this reductive printed state, it's unforgettable.
March 20, 2021
Schreck delivers emotional impact, multiple history lessons and a lot of humor all at the same time. The frame of the play is the American Legion contests where many old men, some good and some lecherous, rate young men and women on their ability to be convincingly patriotic. Schreck calls the question - can the US Constitution be a foundational document for a country other than one where only propertied white men are considered to be fully human?
Read
May 21, 2022When she was fifteen years old, Heidi Schreck started traveling the country, taking part in constitutional debates to earn money for her college tuition. Decades later, in What the Constitution Means to Me, she traces the effect that the Constitution has had on four generations of women in her family, deftly examining how the United States' founding principles are inextricably linked with our personal lives.
November 1, 2021
This is fabulous little play written by Heidi Schreck on the US constitution in her lens. Schreck has a strikingly dark past and deep rooted history of injustice in her family. This is a very raw and telling story of someone who is committed to reviewing, revising, and sharing the wonders of something she feels incredibly empowered by.
This is a feminist approach to modern day politics.
This is a feminist approach to modern day politics.
December 5, 2022
I agree with other reviewers, the first half seems to work better than the second.
That being said, one of my favorite parts of this play is the final moments where Heidi and the debater answer questions with each other. I can only imagine how those answers changed over the course of the run (especially the final question).
That being said, one of my favorite parts of this play is the final moments where Heidi and the debater answer questions with each other. I can only imagine how those answers changed over the course of the run (especially the final question).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews