I believe that to be a true People's Constitution, this new constitution should incorporate democracy by lottery, also know as sortition. Democracy by lottery has its origins in ancient Athens--the Athenians filled almost all their government posts through lotteries to avoid corruption. They knew from experience that elections are aristocratic devices--they are used by the upper classes to capture the political system and lead to oligarchy. Lotteries with frequent rotation of officeholders is how Athenians avoided oligarchy. Democracy by lottery was used in many city states in the Middle Ages. Today, it is undergoing a renaissance in the form of Citizens' Assemblies, especially in Europe. Citizens' Assemblies call together everyday people from all walks of life through a lottery to deliberate on policies and make laws. There are several groups working on Citizens' Assemblies in the United States right now. I believe the process itself to generate a new constitution--the constitutional "convention" if you will-- should be one of multi-body sortition, using several different groups of Citizens' Assemblies to generate the document. For example, an initial Citizens' Assembly of, say, 1,000 everyday people could be called together via a democratic lottery. The selection could be stratified so that the group accurately represents the various demographics of the society at large (e.g., age, gender, level of income, race/ethnicity, political viewpoint). Once assembled, the group would, with the assistance of facilitators, deliberate on the goals and ends they want the new constitution to achieve--basically, asking what makes the good society. What kind of America do we want? What generally do we want the constitution to do for us? They would set the agenda. The second phase could see, say, five different Citizens's Assemblies of 100 people each who spend several months taking expert testimony, researching constitutional theory, deliberating among themselves, and--most importantly-- hearing from the public about how to rewrite the constitution. The public could apply to speak before one of the assemblies by groups of, say, 12 people each. The five assemblies could each then produce a draft of the constitution, then come together in a joint session to deliberate on and revise them into one final version. The last phase could see a large Citizens' Jury of, say, 500, that conducts a "trial" of the proposed constitution. Members of phase two could speak for and against adoption. After a day or two of the trial, the Jury would vote by secret paper ballot. You could require a threshold of 2/3 for adoption. If they fail to achieve it, the document would return to phase two for revisions. This is just a rough outline--there are many details to take into account. But the heart of the process is the democratic lotteries and the deliberation among people of different worldviews. I believe this kind of multi-body sortition should be the form of the final constitution itself. You could create a legislature made up of three phases, like the above, with short terms of office and a ban on future terms. You can also use lotteries to create an Executive Council, instead of a singular President. And you can use lotteries to choose Supreme Court justices and the cases the Court hears. For example, a Court of 50 judges, chosen by lot from a pool of qualified people (e.g., folks with law degrees). Then for each case that comes before the Court, you could choose 9 justices by lot to sit on the case. But the point is that this process would be truly democratic (while also relying on experts) and produce a final product greater than that of any one group of self-appointed insiders. It would prevent elites from capturing and corrupting the process.

Very good article. The initial idea for separation of powers was instigated by John Locke in 1690. His ideas translated to the not delegation doctrine. It basically states that laws that affect the rights and duties of citizens must come from the legislative branch of government; Article I of the Constitution. Locke stated that we should not be obligated to obey laws that were not created by Congress. In other words we should not obey laws that were created by 'legislating from the bench'. But that part did not get written into our Constitution. Whether is be campaign financing, the line item veto, or prayer in schools, John Locke would agree that it is not right that our lives are affected by SCOTUS rather than Congress. Article V was set up to correct flaws in our government. Oversight over the Supreme Court is certainly a topic that needs to be on the agenda. And if Congress does not act, perhaps we need a state-initiated national referendum to provide oversight.

If people would simply read the US Constitution (or attempt to read it)then I think they would quickly see how ambiguous, vague, and downright incoherent this document is. Except for the general principle that "liberty is good" it contains no noble sentiments. This archaic document also contains much confusing grammar and many strange outdated terms.

A divided Congress will not give 2/3 support for anything at this time. The Congressional opportunity to pass an Amendment to the Constitution is not feasible. The state initiated part of Article V is effectively blocked by the words limited convention and the fear of a runaway convention. An open pre-convention can accomplish the necessary debate and get approval of 34 states for the outline of a Constitutional amendment such as overturning Citizens United. (and or other amendments). After the delegates settle on the basic outline, then the states can follow up with applications to an official Article V convention. The final language of the amendment would be finished at the convention. With the approval of 38 states the amendment will be adopted. It's not easy but other reasonable possibilities have failed. The pre-convention must be called by a state or states. This will give it legitimacy. Ultimately this is completely in line with the outline created by our Founding Fathers.