If saving America requires destroying America’s constitutional tradition, then is what we save still the same America?

Some people have begun to discuss amending the Constitution to allow President Trump to serve an additional term, so that he may continue and consolidate the political achievements made during his presidency. Yet amending the Constitution for President Trump would set a dangerous precedent: whenever someone believes a situation to be “absolutely necessary,” they will feel justified in rewriting the Constitution.

The next question naturally follows: could the Constitution also be amended to allow Mr. Elon Musk—widely admired by the public—to serve as president? Arbitrary constitutional change is never a good thing; it is the behavior of authoritarian regimes. Amending the Constitution in order to install a specific individual as president is precisely the kind of act that Presidents Washington and Lincoln would have firmly opposed.

And yet, some argue that compared to allowing figures such as Gavin Newsom, AOC, or Watts to take power in the United States, the Constitution must be amended immediately. Consider this: a single Biden administration admitted roughly ten million illegal immigrants. If the Left remains in power for more than a decade under current conditions, the “South Africanization” of the United States will become a foregone conclusion. Moreover, the Left would almost certainly amend the Constitution to make this transformation irreversible.

Whether to amend the Constitution, then, depends on how conservatives assess the severity of the current crisis. This argument rests on the assumption that, aside from President Trump—or aside from Mr. Musk—no one else can save America. But the very idea of entrusting the fate of a nation and a people to a single heroic figure is itself undemocratic.

The strength of democratic systems does not lie in their ability to cultivate a class of elite politicians. Rather, democracy allows individuals lacking administrative experience to govern competently through collective leadership and institutional constraints. In this respect, President Trump, a former businessman, and President Reagan, a former actor, are among the best examples.

The U.S. Constitution is not untouchable, and the law should evolve with the times. Indeed, the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times. However, any such amendment must be prudent, democratic, and fully consistent with established legal procedures.

Crucially, constitutional change should never be justified on the grounds that only President Trump or only Mr. Musk can save the country. Instead, it must be based on the argument that existing rules—such as presidential term limits or the requirement that presidents be natural-born citizens—no longer meet the nation’s structural needs.

The Constitution is amendable, but it should never be amended for the sake of a single individual or a single event. If alternative means are available, constitutional revision should be postponed. If the United States truly faces an existential crisis, the better path is to strengthen constitutional governance through elections, lobbying, and civic participation—not to bypass it.

Faced with the risk of “South Africanization,” why should priority not be given to pursuing broader reforms—such as immigration reform—through elections or Congress, rather than rewriting the Constitution itself?