SA is correct (from what I assume are his premises) that attempts to change the Constituton will fail miserably.
I've only skimmed Michael's post (my reading is to slow to take in very lengthy technical arguments), but his research is usually pretty dependable, and (I think) he does tend to assume that because soemthing is right it is also a viable political goal. That _does_ mean that some number of "good citizens" could be drawn into a low-pressure long term drive to amend the Constitution. They won't be very visible, but outside left circles the long drives for single-payer and for cap & trade have been pretty invisible. But such endless and futile respectable efforts for change do over time attract some low-level attention at the local level, which means a somewhat larger audience for left agitation when conditons give resonance to left agitation. So I thin we should approve of such efforts.
The same argument applies to the leftists mentioned by SA. All power to them. They will get to talk to some people, get articles in local papers sometimes, appear on forums sponsored by the League of Women Voters, etc. They will also achieve a little experience in organizing. It's a better way to spendone's time than by merely endlessly kvetching about how bad the Obama administration is and how stupid the Democrats are not to serve the people.
No one on the left, under present conditons, is going to cahnge U.S. policy in the immediate future. You can't get there from here. But it is still important to organize (for whatever) because as I said in a post t he other day, "here" keeps cahnging behind our backs as it were, and for the same reason we can't predict when the next left surge will come we can't predict when it won't come, and we do need to keep doing this and that and the otherthing to maintain some sort of continuity, some sort of potential organization (if only loosely among personal acquaintacnces in a given locality.
Carrol