Correct me if I'm wrong, though there are already protections there. It's just president, senate, congress, SCOTUS all agree on this.
IMHO - most effective constitutional change would be to get rid of first past the post election system, electoral colleges, gerrymandering, etc. I think USA's two party system made it to the place where it is right now, seemingly on the verge of turning into one-party system.
- coalition shifts - every election, new groups going and out of each party
- demographic shifts - shrinking / growing / moving around of different groups
- external shock - war / depression / ?? changes incentives of governance (see Civil War, Great Depression)
- hegemons dilemma - the in power party over time goes through in fighting, over confidence, etc (see Republicans becoming corrupt in The Gilded Age)
Alternate constitutional order can mean a lot besides amendments - or even using Federal power. It can be about organizing economic power to reject illegitimacy. It can mean organizing the Democratic Party differently as more of a shadow set of social institutions that support people. It can mean leveraging state power, and building coalitions of blue states. Or other creative approaches to power.
Demographic shifts and a robust social safety net are also naturally reshaping the landscape
In many ways this is more how a parliamentary democracy exists that a republic.
Congress assumed
- it had a legislative veto (any committee could override an agency)
- independent agencies existed.
So it gave broad authority with those assumed checks.
SCOTUS declared legislative veto unconstitutional in 1982. And administrative state is actively going away.
So POTUS can do a lot of damage using the law itself.
This is the new system. Dems need to use it too.
Probably both.