The government of the United States has lost the consent of the governed and thus has lost its just powers to govern. There’s no consensus regarding even the basic purpose of government. To those on the political Right, the basic purpose of government is to ensure equal opportunities for all to succeed economically – to acquire and accumulate private property or wealth. To those on the Left, the basic purpose of government is to ensure equity and justice, regardless of one’s ability to contribute to the economy and thus to succeed economically. The inability of the Right and Left to work together through government for the good of the nation seems to stem largely from this philosophical difference regarding the basic purpose of government.

The founders of the American democracy – Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin, Madison – all had their differences, but they all shared a clear sense of the proper purpose and functions of government. They wrote in the Declaration of Independence “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” among which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

They wrote in the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

These words should be committed to memory by every U.S. citizen as a constant reminder of the essential role and scope of government. From these ideals of our forebearers, we must forge a new consensus regarding the fundamental purpose of our government.

On the issues of life and liberty, there are no disagreements. On the issue of happiness, however, we must forge a new consensus. Our common sense tells us that the right to acquire and accumulate wealth is but one aspect or dimension of happiness. The pursuit of happiness requires equity and justice as well as a measure of economic well-being. Our common sense tells us that the purpose of law and order and national defense is not just to protect our property, or even to ensure our liberty, but also to ensure equity and justice for all – regardless of whether we own property. Furthermore, the purpose of public education and other social services is not simply to promote economic development but to help ensure opportunities for all to pursue not just wealth but their full measure of happiness.

We must rebuild the American democracy on the cornerstone of a commonsense understanding of equal rights and equal opportunities. In the midst of political conflict, we must be willing to trust the common sense of the American people to provide the foundation upon which we can create a new “Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” that will be appropriate and adequate for the challenges of today and of the future.

A government that protects the basic rights of the governed is both legitimate and absolutely necessary. Such a government is not a problem; it is a solution. The Left must concede that people do not have an equal right to everything they might want or need, or an unlimited right to anything. The Right must concede that people must be afforded equal access to those things to which they have equal rights, regardless of their aptitudes or abilities. If we fail to take the initiative to alter our government to ensure the rights of the governed, our nation eventually will degenerate into chaos or be dismantled by violent revolution. Lacking the consent of the governed, our government quite simply is not sustainable.

The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret our rights but not to redefine them. The power to define rights is reserved exclusively for a consensus of the people. The Supreme Court’s authority for interpretation or judicial review is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution. But it certainly had been anticipated by the Founding Fathers. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned acts of state legislatures that conflicted with state constitutions. The Supreme Court was clearly expected to assume the same responsibility for the U.S. Constitution. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison had stressed the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, in their support of ratification of the Constitution. Hamilton wrote that judicial review by the Court would ensure that “the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people.”[1]

In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, asserted that the Supreme Court’s responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was necessary because of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. He wrote, “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Once the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional matter, its judgment is virtually final. The Court’s decisions can be overturned only by a new ruling of the Court itself or by new constitutional amendments. New laws can be written by legislatures to remove constitutional conflicts, but the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Constitution can be overturned only by adding amendments – a process that requires the consent of the governed.

Judicial activism has become a controversial issue over the past several decades. Supreme Court justices, both liberal and conservative, have been accused of going beyond their constitutional powers, in fact, making law rather than merely interpreting law. Those advocating judicial restraint have admonished judges to resist the temptation to reshape public policy by their judicial decisions and declarations. Understandably, those who are flourishing under the current interpretations are most likely to advocate judicial restraint, while those who feel they are languishing look to the Court for relief through judicial activism. The Court’s responsibility is neither to reshape nor to defend public policy. Its responsibility is to interpret the Constitution and leave public policy to Congress – to the elected representatives of the people.

In defense of the U.S. Supreme Court, it has been filling a vacuum left by the American people’s abrogation of political responsibility. The Founding Fathers clearly intended that the Constitution would periodically be amended, again in the words of Jefferson, as “new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change.” Only five amendments have been added to the Constitution since 1947, and only six have even been proposed. During the most dynamic times in American history, a time of new discoveries, new revelations, and new opinions, the people have simply failed to respond with appropriate amendments to the Constitution.

Instead, the Supreme Court has responded with new interpretations, often linked only tenuously to vaguely worded constitutional clauses such as “due process,” “privacy,” or “latent commerce” – or has relied solely on previous Court rulings. In many of the Court’s rulings, as in cases of abortion, gun control, and separation of church and state, their rulings clearly do not reflect a “consensus” of the governed – a majority perhaps, but not a consensus. The only logical means of restoring the “just powers of government” is to restore consensus where none now exists and to reflect this consensus clearly and concisely in the Constitution.

The rights of corporations. The first essential step in bringing about fundamental constitutional change is to forge a consensus that corporations, not being real people, have no right to participate in the process of amending the Constitution. On several occasions the Court has afforded rights to corporations based on the constitutional rights of “real people.” Corporations have not yet been granted the right to vote, but they have been given the explicit right to participate in political processes. The Court’s justification is a questionable linking of corporate rights with the individual right of “free speech.” The latest of these Court rulings gives corporations virtually unlimited power to influence political elections through political contributions and persuasive advertising. The right to participate in amending the Constitution has not yet been granted to corporations by the Supreme Court. This is a right that “real persons” simply cannot afford to share with “artificial persons.”

Corporations are fundamentally different from real people in that they have no ethical or moral capacity to exhibit uniquely human traits such as honesty, fairness, responsibility, empathy, respect, and compassion. Obviously, not all real people exhibit these traits, but only real people even have the capacity to do so. These uniquely human traits are essential in carrying out the responsibilities of citizenship. Thus political activities must be restricted to real people. If our democratic form of government is to survive, the Constitution must reflect the consensus of real people.

The greatest corporate risks to our democracy today obviously are “for-profit” corporations, as they are driven by the economic motives of profit and growth. Many corporations have the economic means to drown out the voices of the multitudes of individual citizens. They express their political preferences through the economic voices of advertising and lobbying, as well as propaganda peddled as scientific objectivity. However, “nonprofit” corporations must also be excluded from the amendment process, if we are to restore true democracy. Labor unions have no more right to participate in the political process than do the corporations with whom they negotiate – neither corporations nor unions are real people. Yet, in 2010, the Supreme Court removed virtually all restrictions on corporate participation in political processes. Today, the right of political speech in the United States equates to access to money.

Democracy requires the informed participation of the people as individuals, not as members of corporate entities that participate on behalf of individuals. The corporate organizational structure facilitates and encourages the separation of individual choices from the decisions of corporations, whether for-profit or nonprofit. Thus, the voices of corporations do not represent the individual voices of their stockholders or members but the voices of the corporate wholes.

Corporations will not give up their current political power without a fight. They will use their political influence to prevent changes in the Constitution that might limit their political or economic power, unless there is a constitutional amendment in place prohibiting them from participating in the amendment process. For example, the medical industry most certainly would oppose any attempt to define health care as a basic right of all people. That would require universal coverage through a single payer – through government. Among the nonprofit organizations, both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” organizations would oppose any attempt to reach a consensus regarding the rights of the unborn. A constitutional consensus on this issue would make both types of organizations unnecessary.

Simply limiting corporate powers through legislation, as was done in the early 1900s, is not a lasting solution, as we have seen. Corporations will always be able to find ways to regain their economic and political power unless the issue of corporate personhood is addressed constitutionally.

The Court’s acceptance of the premise of “corporate personhood” in the late 1800s was linked to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has never written a formal opinion on this matter. The Chief Justice simply stated at the time that the Court had agreed that “corporate persons” have the rights of “real persons,” as expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[2]

This amendment was adopted to ensure equal protection under the law for former slaves who had been freed by the Thirteenth Amendment. It was never anticipated that corporations would be included in the category of “persons born or naturalized in the United States,” as several past justices have articulated in their opposition to the Court’s persistent rulings in favor of “corporate personhood.”

The civil rights of corporations could conceivably be revoked by a future Court ruling. However, since the Court has shown little inclination to do so – in fact, has expanded corporate rights over time – the responsibility to replace corpocracy with democracy clearly rests with the American people.

Corporations undoubtedly will attempt to use their current political rights to block an amendment denying them the right to participate in amending the Constitution. However, the premise that “artificial people” should not be allowed to participate in defining the rights of “real people” should be so compelling as to effectively nullify corporate propaganda. The corporations will argue that future amendments designed to ensure a sustainable economy might undermine the corporate economy. Thus, the people must be reminded that any future amendments can be adopted only through a process of consensus by the governed, not by the government. Corporations simply should not be allowed to impede or stifle future consensus-building processes. Amendments to the Constitution must reflect the consent of “real people.”

A new Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. Once the obstacle of corporate participation has been removed, the drafting of a new Bill of Rights might be the next logical step. The amendment process will require a common commitment from the American people. Such a commitment is more likely if the most pressing concerns of both the political Left and Right are addressed in a common process of constitutional clarification, as well as constitutional change. A new Bill of Rights might also be acceptable to more people if it is accompanied by amendments that also define related responsibilities.

The original Bill of Rights evolved from a lengthy process that began in 1789, shortly after constitutional ratification. The promise of adding a set of amendments to protect the rights of the people against the potentially oppressive power of government had been given to gain the support of enough states to ratify the Constitution. James Madison began the amendment process with a long list of potential amendments proposed by various state legislatures. Some proposals were consolidated, others were eliminated, and the list was eventually narrowed down to twelve, which were submitted to the states for ratification by the newly formed Congress. From the twelve, ten were eventually ratified by enough states to allow a Bill of Rights to be added to the new Constitution in 1791. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, a Bill of Rights had been considered unnecessary by many, including Madison. Over time, however, the first ten amendments have proven to be essential to the preservation of American democracy.

A new Bill of Rights and Responsibilities may well be necessary to sustain our democracy in the future – in light of the ecological, social, and economic challenges of today. A logical place to begin drafting new constitutional amendments would be in clarifying the most controversial constitutional issues of today – those for which the current Supreme Court rulings no longer represent the consent of the governed. In some cases, current rulings of the Court may be consistent with the views of the majority of Americans, but a majority does not constitute a consensus. The new consensus may validate, revise, or overturn the current rulings of the Supreme Court, all of which the American people have the right and responsibility to do by amending the Constitution.

Deeply held differences of opinion on controversial issues, such as abortion, gun control, and separation of church and state, obviously will not be easy to resolve. However, such issues are resolvable, if we are willing to renew the discussion on a foundation of commonsense principles of human relationships – principles that we all know to be right and good. Government is a means by which we relate to each other at an impersonal level. The same principles that make sense in personal relationships among family members, friends, and neighbors make sense in defining and ensuring the rights and responsibilities that must be reflected in our impersonal relationships through government.

We know we must strive to be honest, fair, responsible, empathetic, respectful, and compassionate if we are to sustain positive personal relationships with other people. We also have a right to expect others to reflect these same core values in their relationships with us. We know that we can never be perfect in our relationships, and we know that our family, friends, and neighbors are not less imperfect than we. Our striving for rightness and goodness is all that is necessary to sustain personal relationships, and that is all that is necessary in reaching an impersonal consensus regarding our constitutional rights and responsibilities.

Outdated precedents. The consensus process may prove far easier if we free ourselves from past rulings of the Supreme Court. For example, the question of abortion is fundamentally a question of the inalienable rights of self-determination and self-defense, not simply a matter of privacy or even an inherent right to life. All life began with the beginning of life, so the question of rights is not a question of when life begins. The mother, the father, the sperm, the egg, the fetus, and the child are all living things.

No legal right is ever absolute, including the right to life; the basic question is, at what point in development is the fetus to be granted legal rights? In a democracy, legal rights can be granted only by “the people,” not by any single person, even if that person is a mother or a doctor.

People have an unrestricted right of self-determination in cases where there are no conflicts with the legal rights of others. Therefore, prior to the time at which a fetus gains legal rights, the mother has the legal right to terminate the pregnancy. Once the fetus is granted legal rights, the mother still has the right of self-defense – the right to protect her health and her life from threats posed by her unborn child. As in other cases of self-defense, the means must be commensurate with the magnitude, immediacy, and potential consequences of the threat.

Admittedly, it will not be easy to determine when a specific fetus should be granted legal rights. The Roe v. Wade ruling might be a reasonable place to start the discussion of rights, but the ruling does not resolve the issue of where within the second trimester of pregnancy the rights of the fetus should begin. Once the fetus is granted legal rights, society must be willing to accept ultimate responsibility for its well-being if the parents do not, as in the case of minor children. The legal rights of the unborn may well be different from the rights of the born, just as the legal rights of children are different from the rights of adults.

In such cases, it will not be easy to devise means for ensuring the legal rights to life, self-determination, and self-defense. At some point a representative of society must be involved in any decision to terminate a pregnancy after a fetus has gained legal rights. Such decisions must be made quickly, but less quickly than most other decisions regarding self-defense. The task of ensuring justice for all in questions involving the unborn should be both less urgent and less difficult than in other most other cases of self-defense today.

If a consensus can be reached regarding abortion, a consensus should be possible on virtually anything. The issue of gun control could also be addressed from the perspective of an inherent right to self-defense rather than trying to link it to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. A new amendment could make self-defense an explicit constitutional right, including the conditions under which people have a right to defend themselves and the right to use means appropriate to the threat.

A person who felt threatened could apply for a permit for a weapon, but only a weapon appropriate to the threat. For example, there would seem to be little justification for owning an assault weapon for personal self-defense. Hunting presumably would also be recognized as a legal reason for owning a gun, but generally not a reason for carrying a concealed weapon. The point is that a consensus regarding gun control is far more likely if we renew the discussion from the perspective of self-defense and hunting game, rather than continuing to argue about the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The separation of church and state is another divisive issue that needs to be resolved through a new public consensus. First, it should be clear from the founding documents of the United States that the Founding Fathers never intended to remove religion from all public expression. These documents are filled with expressions of ethical and moral values explicitly rooted in religious beliefs. The current constitutional amendment regarding freedom of religion was simply meant to preclude the government from establishing or promoting any “particular religion.” While some might be inclined to use government to promote their particular religion, the vast majority of Americans likely still believe that government should not promote any particular religion.

The basic problem is that Court rulings have placed the government in a position of promoting “nonreligion” by excluding all religious expressions from all affairs involving government. The most controversial Court rulings likely are those restricting prayer in public schools and removing religious symbols from public property. While such practices may seem innocuous to most adults, they certainly have the capacity to create images in the minds of children, specifically the impression that religious values, of any type, are not to be expressed outside the home or church. Perhaps more bothersome to many, it creates the impression that atheism, or at least agnosticism, has been established as the “state religion” of the United States.

Our common sense tells us that government should not promote any particular religion, but neither should it discourage the expression of ethical and moral values, religious or otherwise, in private, public, or political expressions. A new constitutional consensus should make clear that “freedom of religion” does not mean “exclusion of religion” from public life or the affairs of government.

The purpose here is not to attempt to resolve these difficult issues, only to suggest alternative means of beginning to pursue a consensus. Some people will never move beyond their narrowly held views on these contentious issues. Regardless, if we approach each discussion with a commitment to honesty, fairness, responsibility, respect, and compassion, for all involved on both sides of such issues, we as a society should be able eventually to arrive at a consensus that is both right and good.

The need for new constitutional rights. The ecological, social, and economic challenges of today cannot be met unless we accept our basic human responsibility to meet the needs of the present without diminishing opportunities for the future. We must be willing to defend the rights of all people to meet their basic physical, mental, and spiritual needs today while accepting the responsibility of living and working in ways that ensure equal opportunities for those of the future. We must encode the rights and responsibilities of sustainability into our Constitution – the most fundamental expression of what it means to be a citizen of the United States of America.

To reclaim our economic and political sovereignty, we must remove the influence of money from politics. Not only will doing so remove the disproportionate influence of the wealthy relative to average Americans; it will also remove the influence of corporations in the political process. With modern communications systems, there is no longer any legitimate reason to allow paid advertising in political campaigns, neither for candidates nor for specific public issues.

The so-called free press is no longer limited to newspapers but includes both private and public radio and television and, most important, the ubiquitous Internet. The Internet gives individuals, including public officials, access to the full range of information and opinions related to public issues, without the filters of the commercial print media. Even those without direct access to the Internet have access to Internet information through friends or through local new media outlets. Unfortunately, most of the so-called free press today is controlled by large corporations with vested interests in retaining control of the political process.

A new constitutional amendment might start by stating that people have both an individual right and a personal responsibility to participate in political processes. The expressed intention of such an amendment would be to restrict participation in politics to individuals, excluding corporate entities. Political involvement would be restricted to direct personal expenditures of time and money, explicitly excluding paying someone else to influence public opinion. Personal expenditures would be limited to those required for personal appearances, which could be broadcast through public media outlets. Constitutional “free speech” was never meant to be amplified by dollars or morphed into corporate propaganda.

As a consequence of such an amendment, all political campaigns would be publicly financed, and all public issues would be supported by public information campaigns. A specific schedule of official public press releases and in-person events, including debates, could be administered by election officials to ensure that all voters had access to adequate information to make informed decisions. The details of implementation would have to be worked out through experience over time, but the end result would have to be consistent with the constitutional principle that the right to participate in the political process is individual and personal.

Economic sovereignty will require that all people be granted the right to be protected from economic exploitation. No person has a right to benefit economically at the expense of another. One means of protecting people from economic exploitation is to maintain meaningful competition in the marketplace. No business should be allowed to gain sufficient market power to exploit its customers or its employees by limiting alternative products or employment opportunities. This was the initial premise for antitrust legislation. However, antitrust actions have been treated as an “optional activity” by government, rather than a constitutional responsibility. Consumer fraud and worker protection laws likewise have been treated as discretionary, to be enforced when politically expedient and watered down or ignored when burdensome for the economy. The rights and responsibilities of consumers, workers, and employers apparently must be ensured by the Constitution.

For example, modern persuasive advertising, with its roots in consumer psychology, has made a mockery of consumer sovereignty. Consumers must have accurate information to make informed choices, and their preferences cannot have been subjected to manipulation. Persuasive advertising should be treated as a form of consumer deception and fraud, and thus all advertising should be strictly regulated with respect to both content and forms of delivery. Advertising should be strictly prohibited for products targeted to children and the elderly. There is no more devious or destructive form of economic exploitation than manipulation of the human mind through deceptive advertising.

Ecological sovereignty will require that all people be granted the right to a clean, healthy, and productive natural environment. No person has the right to foul the environment in which others must live or to deplete the resources on which others must depend for their livelihood. This was the initial premise of today’s environmental legislation. Again, the environmental laws and regulations that were implemented during the 1970s have been systematically weakened and ignored in an effort to maintain unsustainable levels of economic growth. Protection of the natural environment and natural resources should not be just an option to be considered when the economy is strong. It should be a constitutional responsibility that cannot be shirked or ignored, regardless of whether it might restrain economic growth. Ecological sovereignty is essential for long-run economic sustainability.

Social sovereignty requires not only rights to life and liberty but also the right to economic equity and justice. Economic equity and justice does not mean that all people must be ensured equal income or wealth, only that all people have certain basic economic rights. Most other developed nations of the world recognize the fundamental economic rights of all people. The U.S. government has thus far left this responsibility to the so-called free market economy. Some social welfare programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, have been protected from budget cuts by their public popularity. However, most social welfare programs have been treated as dispensable economic luxuries rather than essential government responsibilities.

All people have an inherent right to sufficient food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education to allow for normal development and maintenance of their physical and mental capacities. Anything less is a violation of their basic human rights. Ensuring these rights does not suggest that people have a right to anything they might want, only enough to meet their basic economic needs. All people also have a right to be employed in some meaningful occupation that will allow them to meet those needs – to the extent they are able to do so. They also have a responsibility to work in such employment – to the extent they are able to do so. Reliance on the economy alone to ensure the economic rights of people has never worked in the past and will not work in the future. Surely honesty, fairness, responsibility, empathy, respect, and compassion can lead to a constitutional consensus that will ensure the economic rights of all Americans.

To ensure long-run economic, ecological, and social sustainability, those of future generations must be afforded the same rights as those of current generations. All people of all generations have the same basic right to the resources of nature (land, energy, water, and air). All people of all generations have the same right to the resources of civil society (a society of thoughtful, caring, creative, productive people). Simply pretending that new technologies and human ingenuity will somehow free future generations from the finite limits of nature and society is nothing more than a baseless excuse for continued economic extraction and exploitation.

A constitutional amendment ensuring equal rights for current and future generations would do more to ensure sustainability than any other single political act of the American people. Only by ensuring equal rights for all to the resources of nature and society can we ensure equal rights for those of future generations to a healthy, productive ecosphere, society, and economy. How can anyone possibly argue that we do not have a responsibility to do whatever we can to ensure the future of our society and of humanity?

This is not meant to complete the list of constitutional amendments that should be included in a new Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. The list should include whatever is deemed necessary to ensure the right of all generations to an equal opportunity to pursue their full measure of happiness. The point is that existing rights are in dire need of clarification to bring the nation together. Furthermore, rights and responsibilities that are currently treated as implicit and discretionary need to be made explicit and compulsory to ensure long-run sustainability. Constitutional amendments are the most appropriate means of restoring consensus and avoiding a violent revolution by restoring the democratic rights that are essential to the pursuit of happiness.

The constitutional amendment process. The amendment process is spelled out in detail in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. It follows immediately after articles relating to the three branches of government and state-federal government relationships, which indicates its importance to the Founding Fathers. It reads:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

The task is clear. There are two means of initiating the formal amendment process: by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress on specific amendments or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. A national initiative to introduce a set of amendments as a single package, as a new Bill of Rights, might be the best strategy for securing a two-thirds majority in Congress. Each amendment presumably would still require a separate vote, but the package as a whole could be proposed by Congress. However, a constitutional convention may be the more promising of the two alternatives, given the current corporate influence in the U.S. Congress.

Many people have expressed skepticism about convening a constitutional convention. Most of the skeptics seem to be afraid that some favored interpretation of the Constitution in the latest Supreme Court ruling might be overturned. Many are justly concerned about corporate influence: thus the need for an initial amendment barring corporations from the process. Others simply do not trust the American people to respect the fundamental principles of democracy, at least not at this point in American history. None of these current concerns about a constitutional convention respects the ability of We the People to govern ourselves. If we are not capable of self-government, we simply cannot sustain our democracy, with or without a constitutional convention.

Various initiatives are currently under way to promote specific constitutional amendments proposed by those on the Left and the Right. They range from limiting the rights of corporations to allowing prayer in public schools. However, none of these will secure the support necessary for ratification without support from the American Middle. Furthermore, a major constitutional initiative of the Middle might actually be embraced by current supporters of individual amendments, if they are brought into an inclusive process of comprehensive constitutional reform. A national discussion of how to start and sustain such a process would seem a logical place to light the fires of peaceful revolution.

Comprehensive constitutional reform will not be initiated by the political Left or Right. They have become comfortable in their adversarial positions and have no real incentive to help Americans find common ground on the issues that divide us. It will take a Revolution of the Middle to start the process of restoring the consent of the governed, reestablishing the just power of government, and reclaiming our democracy.