[ren]

I don't know for sure what might be meant by "change the wording" of the Constitution. However, anything to address the Constitution at this point is better than ignoring a crisis.

It appears to me we have some structural problems built in that should be addressed. I don't know if just changing the wording is enough. Examples:

One of the deep structural problems is the Senate. Fundamentally undemocratic as it gives inordinate voice to states with small populations, which undermines the concept of democratic representation.

The presidency itself is fundamentally flawed. At the moment many of us see that it needs to be defanged and none of our Constitutional institutions seem to be able to rein it in. But the problem goes deeper, and as we have expanded in geographic size and number of states, and more and more complex as a society, the nature of the office and what it has come to involve pushes it towards avoiding the messiness of any oversight when it needs to exercise its Constitutional mandates. The President likes to blame Congress and vice versa. That often equals stalemate. Stalemate itself is messy and that adds to the pressure to allow more authority in presidential decision making.

We desperately need a press that is not beholden to money interests. The Fourth Estate is owned by a handful of corporations.

Now we have interactive technology that could change the whole static nature of the relationship between the citizens and their representatives -- and the President. The Constitution was conceived in horse and buggy technology, and that's worth some thought.