I glance at josh.com a couple times a year and most recently I found this proposal of his for a constitutional amendment.
The concept is that uncertainty costs money and that currently our governmental system is too much at the whims of politicians. Therefore, josh proposes an amendment that would create a new kind of law -- not quite at the level of the constitution (although it would require an constitutional amendment to create the concept) but more difficult to alter than federal statutes.
Here's a little chart he provides in his post (he also provides a proposed amendment)
| Type of Enactment | Who Makes it | Typical Time to Enact |
|---|---|---|
| US Constitution & Amendments | Proposed by a 2/3 vote of each chamber or an Article V convention; ratified by 3/4 of the states | Fastest ratification (26th Amend.) was 100 days; most finish in 1–2 years, while the 27th Amendment took 202 years. Repeal requires another amendment, so the timeline is identical. |
| Persistant Charter (new category) | Super-majority of 3/5 of both houses in three consecutive sessions, signed by the President each time | Cannot finish in less than about 2–3 years. Undoing it demands the same three-session super-majority, so repeal is equally arduous. |
| Federal Statute (Act of Congress) | Simple majority in House & Senate; President signs (or veto overridden by 2/3 of each chamber) | Emergency bills can pass in days, but most take weeks to months. Congress repeals or revises by passing another statute under the same procedure. |
I'm not opposed to the idea of making laws harder to pass and harder to get rid of. However, the chances of getting 3/5 of both houses in three consecutive sessions seems pretty low (not lower though than the getting a constitutional amendment passed with the current crowd).
Also, I am a little worried that if there was a serious campaign to actually amend the constitution, the politicians would start to get ideas and we'd end up with a disaster.