By Kevin T. Frazier

April 22, 2024, 11:30 AM

The success of the American Experiment is directly related to the ABCs of our constitutional order being maintained, despite drastic changes to our economy, culture, and politics. As I outlined in my last post, the ABCs are: A – an accountable government; B – the basic resources and opportunities to pursue the American Dream; and, C – constraints on the concentration of power in all its forms, be it economic, political, or otherwise. These represent foundational elements of our constitutional democracy.

Prior generations of Americans have taken bold steps to reinforce these elements. Following the Civil War, the Reconstruction-era amendments expanded our conception of citizenship, enlarged the electorate, and outlawed an egregious system of exploitation by banning slavery. 

In response to robber barons exercising outsized and undue influence over politics, the Progressive Movement ushered in new checks and balances. They countered individuals possessing excessive wealth with the income tax. They corrected centuries of disenfranchisement by granting women the right to vote. And they made senators accountable to the people through direct election of the Senate.

There are numerous other historical instances of Americans ensuring an accountable government, fighting for the opportunities inherent to the American Dream, and tackling entrenched inequality. The focus of this series, though, is how we are going to fulfill our duty as stewards of the Constitution and its ABCs, particularly in the Age of AI.

This duty will involve a great deal of trial and error. For example, for each of the amendments mentioned above, many others were evaluated but ultimately not adopted. For instance, many Progressive reformers pushed hard for mandatory voting, and some states even amended their constitutions to incorporate such a requirement. And yet, that proposal and others did not ultimately become a part of our constitutional order. 

Now is the time for bold thinking. To fulfill our constitutional responsibility and democratic obligations, we must avoid the temptation to dismiss ideas simply because they currently lack political popularity. The Radical Republicans who pushed for ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments did not earn that moniker by championing minor reforms, nor did the Progressives earn their spot in constitutional lore by introducing ideas that already enjoyed broad acceptance. By way of example, the fight to ratify the 16th Amendment and legalize the income tax took nearly two decades.

The commitment to codifying necessary protections, even if unpopular, is integral to the “Real Deal”- the package of laws and amendments necessary to bolster the ABCs amid technological disruption and widespread distrust in democratic institutions. The Real Deal includes the:

• Right to Reality – the subsidization of local news such that every American can access the information required to actively monitor their officials and the implementation of policy; 
• Right to Retrain – a tax on AI labs intended to generate the necessary revenue to provide every American who, due to AI, has had their job cut or hours reduced with a chance to professionally or vocationally retrain; and, 
• Right to Reap – a safeguard against excessive profiteering by AI labs. More specifically, the Right to Reap would impose a windfall tax upon any AI lab making more than a specified profit such that Americans would receive a portion of this newly generated wealth.

However, the manifold threats to the ABCs in our current era suggest that more rights, laws, and amendments should be included in the Real Deal. To that end, the time has come for a third Congressional chamber—the People’s Chamber. The House and Senate no longer serve their intended purposes. As the nation’s population has swelled, the number of U.S. Representatives has remained stagnant since the Taft era; consequently, there’s one voting House member for every 747,000 or so Americans. This apportionment runs counter to the Framers intent, which was for the House to “have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.” 

The Senate similarly has failed to adjust in light of demographic and political developments. If demographic predictions are correct that 70 percent of Americans will live in just 15 states come 2040, then the 30 senators representing that supermajority will have marginal sway. In other words, the Senate will likely become even more countermajoritarian in a way that the Framers could not have anticipated and certainly did not desire. Though the Senate was shaped to prevent “the impulse of sudden and violent passions” from steering the legislative branch, it was not intended to undermine the will of 70 percent of Americans, as it may soon do. 

One thousand randomly selected Americans – reflective of the nation’s demographic, economic, racial, ethnic, and religious diversity – would make up the Chamber. They would serve for three-year terms, meet predominately online (to allow members some ability to maintain their preexisting obligations and routines), and exercise the following powers:

• By a majority vote, demand that the other chambers take an up and down vote on 30 pieces of legislation per year;
• By a two-thirds vote, exercise a legislative override of a Supreme Court decision (akin to systems in Israel and Canada); and, 
• By a three-fourths vote, override a presidential veto, regardless of whether the other branches had done so. 

With respect to checks and balances, the executive would have opportunities to brief the Chamber, and the House and Senate could exercise five “skips” per year (in other words, they could each refuse to consider up to five bills upon a two-thirds vote by that chamber). 

This new chamber would go a long way toward restoring the popular legitimacy of the federal government. Its reflection of the nation’s diversity would assuage valid concerns that Congress looks more like a retirement home than a nation that’s becoming more diverse every day. Its use of random selection would alleviate concerns that officials are beholden to special interests more so than the interests of everyday people. And, its specific and (admittedly) blunt powers would allow for voters to more easily assess if the House and Senate were acting in good faith with respect to wielding their own powers. For example, if the House and Senate continually rejected proposals sent over by the People’s Chamber, then voters may have cause to question the decision making and motives of Representatives and Senators. 

The amendment process to add the Chamber to our Constitution would likely be a long, hard road. Still, as was the case in the Reconstruction Era and Progressive Era, we owe it to the next generation of Americans to boldly update our constitutional order to preserve the ABCs at the heart of our American Experiment.