The following version of this book was used to create this study guide: Schreck, Heidi. What the Constitution Means to Me. Theatre Communications Group, Inc. New York, NY. 2020. First Edition.

The play is less a single story and more the narration and exploration of a series of experiences, all tied together by various considerations of the United States Constitution and its Amendments. There is no plot, and little of what might be described as “action.” Instead, there are both personal anecdotes and considerations of American socio-political-legal history. The play’s final section consists of a person-to-person debate that embodies and manifests the play’s central thematic, and titular, consideration – what the Constitution means, and/or can mean, to an individual American.

The play begins with author/performer/central character Heidi Schreck coming onstage, greeting the audience, and explaining the play’s setting – i.e., what the audience sees on the stage. As Schreck describes it, the setting is less of a place where the action of a story will unfold and more of an evocation of memory – specifically, Schreck’s memory of the sort of place where, as a teenager, she participated in debates and competitions focused on the U.S. Constitution.

After this introductory section, Schreck moves through a re-enaction of one of those competitions. She does so under the supervision, and sometimes with the help, of a character identified as the Legionnaire. As Schreck describes him, this character is a representation of the sort of person that supervised the various competitions she entered – specifically, an ex-military service person member of the American Legion, an organization of veterans which, as one of its many activities, sponsored debates about the Constitution. That sponsorship, Schreck and the Legionnaire explain, was designed to increase knowledge about the Constitution in young people, and also to give them a chance to earn some money, through winning competitions, to attend college.

As Schreck re-enacts one of the debates from her teen years, there are frequent diversions into personal histories and anecdotes. As Schreck explains the situation, the main reason for these diversions is that defining a personal relationship with the Constitution was often a key component of the competitions she entered. At the same time, a consistent point of focus in Schreck’s diversions is her family history, primarily the emotional and relationship histories of her female ancestors, and how those histories were shaped by different clauses of the Constitution. She also expands her considerations into recounting of the Constitution-defined lives and experiences of other women.

Eventually, as Schreck becomes more involved in speaking to the audience directly rather than portraying her debates, the Legionnaire takes on a different identity. He becomes the actor – Mike – who had been playing the Legionnaire. Mike’s story of growing up gay and the evolution of his relationship with the Constitution parallels Schreck’s story in several ways.

The play’s attention then returns to Schreck, who continues the explorations and considerations of her personal relationship with the Constitution. She portrays her thinking and understanding as having evolved considerably since the years when she was debating its merits. As she does so, she emphasizes how that evolution took place primarily as a result of her growing awareness of the relationship between the Constitution, the laws it enables and constructs, and women.

In the final third of the play, Schreck is a participant in a live debate between herself and a young female debater. The text suggests that during the play’s original production, there were two debaters who alternated performances. The debate follows a more detailed format than the debate re-enacted by Schreck in the first part of the play, and the text offers two examples of how the debate might play out – one with Schreck arguing in favor of the abolishing of the Constitution, one with Schreck arguing in favor of it being retained. In its transcription of a pair of examples of the live debates that happened during the play’s Broadway run, the arguments of the debaters tend to parallel each other – that is, the debaters arguing for abolition (i.e., Schreck or her opponent) use the same points, while the debaters arguing for retention (again, either Schreck or her opponent) do the same.

Each sample debate concludes with the debaters being asked a series of mostly random questions submitted by the audience. One question, however, remains consistent. At the conclusion of the question section, the young debater is asked where she sees herself and her life in a particular number of years (e.g., ten, twenty, thirty). With each sample debate, each with a different debater, the text includes that debater’s answers.