The Mass. Constitution and why it matters now. An expert explains| Bay State Briefing (2025)

Good Monday morning, all.

If you were up early and found yourself in Lexington over the weekend, you might have mistakenly thought you’d fallen into a tear in the space-time continuum, what with all the folks in Revolutionary War cosplay, and all.

The reenactment of the battle that sparked America’s fight for independence is an annual occurrence on Lexington’s Battle Green. And this year, with the nation’s 250th birthday looming, it comes freighted with some additional meaning.

And with this Monday being Patriots’ Day here in the Bay State (and Marathon Monday!), it seemed like a good idea to review another of Massachusetts’ key contributions to the founding of the Republic.

Namely, that the Bay State’s Constitution, drafted in 1780 by Quincy’s own John Adams, was the template for the U.S. Constitution, written seven years later, by James Madison.

For that refresher, MassLive turned to Jerold Duquette, a Central Connecticut State University professor, who tracks Massachusetts politics. Here are 3 things to know about the Bay State’s founding document, and why we wouldn’t be the country we are now without it.

Duquette, the co-editor of “The Politics of Massachusetts Exceptionalism,” took a few minutes to share his thoughts last week. This conversation has been lightly edited for content and clarity.

Q: It’s Patriots’ Day in Massachusetts. What’s the one big thing we need to know about the Massachusetts Constitution?

Duqette: “Given what we’re now experiencing in [the] state and nation ... the most significant thing about the Massachusetts Constitution that should be heralded from the top of Beacon Hill is the very clear existence of legislative supremacy, both … in theory and in practice .... legislative supremacy was invented in Massachusetts. The framers of the Massachusetts Constitution had spent a century-and-a-half as legislators beating the s**t out of royal governors.”

Q: Why does that matter?

A: “In Washington today, we’re seeing the [poison] fruits of legislative supremacy, [it] having been dashed incrementally. Basically, for our last 100 years, Congress has gradually, sometimes not so gradually, surrendered power to the executive. And now we have an executive running all over the Constitution and a [legislative branch] doing nothing.”

Q: If you’re looking for through-lines between the Massachusetts and U.S. constitutions, what are the most obvious drop-and-drags?

A: “The most important things, I would contend, are these two concepts, which are legislative supremacy and separation of powers."

“Now, not a lot of people want to talk about legislative supremacy ... it’s kind of tricky, right? If you’re talking about legislative supremacy, I’m talking about a concept of principle. And I’m certainly talking about how it has worked out in Massachusetts.”

“But what you hear lawyers and even constitutional law professors sometimes say is that the Constitution of Massachusetts, as well as the Constitution of the United States, envisioned separation of powers [and] coequal branches.”

“However, they’re always careful to say that only one of the branches is really completely independent and is preeminent — or the first among equals — and that is the legislature. I call that legislative supremacy."

“Lots of American historians and constitutional experts in the 20th century did as well, but it’s clearly not the case in the United States. Right? The American Constitution has, in fact, no longer has legislative supremacy, because the Congress and the courts have essentially ceded authority to the president.”

Q: What do you think the framers would make of this creep of the unitary executive, which has been a bipartisan phenomenon?

A: “They would be terrified ... There were two ... big fears. Well, maybe it’s the same fear, but it’s two sides of the coin.

“They were very much afraid of the average person. In a sense, they were afraid of any kind of direct democracy. But they were also afraid of the kind of person who would be able to exploit the opinions of those masses, and that would be the demagogue. They were afraid of demagogic leaders being able to inflame the passion. So, mob rule is a fear of the people. But it’s also a fear of the people who would strike fear in the people.”

“You don’t really have to be a scholar to recognize that we have a demagogic president who is taking full advantage of the power of public opinion .... Executives are very, very comfortable now claiming an electoral mandate. That’s not really something the framers would ever have wanted. They would not have wanted any president ... to be claiming that they are the people’s president.”

Q: What should people be reflecting on today? What will you be reflecting on during Patriots Day?

A: “I think I’ll be reflecting on the dangers of the unitary executive theory, and how we’re seeing it at the national level. You know that danger is imminent.”

Monday Numbers

As if we needed further confirmation that driving in Massachusetts is, indeed, a bloodsport, this new data from the folks at Insurify.com should do the trick.

First, the good news: Car accident rates declined in every state except Vermont and New York from 2023 to 2024. Those states had a 2% and 10% increase, respectively, according to the industry website’s analysis.

But before Bay State drivers stop leaning on their horns long enough to take a bow, here’s some sobering perspective: Massachusetts had the highest crash rate (6.07%) of all 50 states, according to that same analysis.

Insurify analysts calculated the accident rate based on the number of accidents and the total number of drivers in each state.

If it’s any consolation, nearly all of our fellow New England drivers are also menaces on the road.

New Hampshire had the second-highest crash rate at 5.81%, followed by Rhode Island, which finished third at 5.63%. Maine finished fourth at 5.38%.

And while Bay Staters like to mock Connecticut, the Nutmeg State finished 29th, at 4.22%, according to the Insurify analysis.

They said it

“People are struggling, and too many of the folks in charge are out of touch or out of reach. I’ve seen what it’s like when rent eats half your paycheck. When schools go underfunded year after year. When entire neighborhoods feel like they’re being pushed out. And I know I’m not alone — that’s the Boston too many of us are living in."

The call is coming from inside City Hall. Kerry Augustin, 26, a receptionist for Boston’s Age Strong Commission, jumped into the crowded field of candidates who are looking to challenge incumbent Mayor Michelle Wu.

Read More MassLive politics coverage

US-Canada relations tested as border library faces new restrictions | John L. Micek

Layoffs begin amid ‘budget crisis’ at Harvard’s Chan School of Public Health

Western New England Law prof fighting Trump’s ban on trans people from military

Kerry Augustin, City Hall employee, joins Boston mayoral race

Mass. House Speaker Mariano resists calls for indicted Cape Cod rep. to resign

Trump admin cancels $90 million in disaster prevention aid for 18 Mass. communities

Why Harvard was willing to risk $9B to fight Trump

On your calendars

Springfield Democrats huddle on May 10 at Springfield Central High School (and virtually) to pick their slate of delegates to this year’s Democratic State Convention.

Democrats from the City of Firsts have home-field advantage for the party conclave, which is being held at the MassMutual Center in downtown Springfield. on Sept 13.

The May 10 event gets rolling at 10:30 a.m., with registration closing at 10:45 a.m. The caucus will also feature speeches by local elected officials and party leaders.

Turned up to 11

Japanese Breakfast, the nom de rock for singer-songwriter Michelle Zauner, plays the MGM Music Hall in Boston on May 7 (Tickets and more info here). The band has an outstanding new record out, “For Melancholy Brunettes (& sad women),” that builds on an already impressive discography. From that LP, here’s “Orlando in Love.”

Your Monday long read

From name and likeness rights to the transfer window, the big-money business of college football has seen some equally big changes over the last few years.

Another biggie: The rise of the college football general manager. Sam Khan Jr., writing for The Athletic, explains why you need a GM if you intend to be a serious player. One caveat though: This change has been underway for years.

Here’s the germane part:

Across college football, employing a general manager has become table stakes for programs that are serious about talent acquisition.

A GM’s role can vary, but in most cases, that person oversees all aspects of roster construction: high school recruiting, the transfer portal, name, image and likeness compensation and — once the House v. NCAA settlement is approved — a revenue-sharing payroll.rule

Some programs have prioritized hires with NFL experience to help navigate an offseason that looks more professionalized by the day, especially with contract negotiations and NFL-style holdouts playing out in increasingly public forums.

In 2025, the GM has become one of the most important athletic department hires a school can make. But college football GMs aren’t an overnight invention. They’re a movement nearly 20 years in the making, with the largest roots tracing to some of the sport’s most storied programs.

Major rule changes accelerated general managers’ evolution from back-office grunts to one of the most influential people in the building. And their profile is only rising.

One more caveat: The full story is subscription-only.

That’s it for today. As always, tips, comments and questions can be sent to jmicek@masslive.com. Have a good week, friends.