Quite the contrary, the constitution and the law in general in the US were written in plain English so that the law would not be some inaccessible thing to the general population. The only people who benefit from the 'legalese' view of the constitution are the lawers in congress and in the private market who then rake in millions 'interpretting' the meaning of the laws and/or bending them to fit their needs.
As a practical matter? Nothing. As a far reach, monarchy of some kind so the head of state in effect owns the state and is interested in preserving and increasing its long term capital value as opposed to just squeezing it for all it's worth in the present, which is what elected stewards tend to do. Chances of that happening in the US though are practically zilch.
As a practical avenue, try and re educate people as to what many of the founders knew. That being, that the state is not a solution to life's imperfections and that its scope should be severely limited. That freedom is preferable than a possibly more cushy life but one in effect spent in bondage of some kind. A big part of this is recapturing the vocabulary. Rights used to mean restrictions on the state's power, these days it means government enablement. Freedom of speech meant the state couldn't stop you from speaking your mind, not that everyone was enabled to publish their own newspaper. These days the latter intepretation is more likely. Of old the free market meant just that, a market free from intervention. These days institutions like The Fed are considered 'free market', even though The Fed's job stated outright is to push interest lower than the market would have set it and to make money more freely available than the market would have. We live in a newspeak world where the operations of a government institution whose goal is to directly interfere with and change market prices for the direct benefit of a few politically connected bankers is considered 'free market' even though it's a page right out of the Marx/Engles play book, both of whom stated outright that a centralization and control of credit and capital would be instrumental in bringing about socialism/communism.
So the first step I think is to take back the language, and then try and show people that by and large they are better off without the government sucking up half their income. To show them that a country where the government does just that on a regular basis is not properly considered free.
I understand what you mean.
I too have concerns about the governmental form of democracy as I see it in so many countries.
I have not problem with the concept of democracy itself, but with how in practice it has many problems.
It too has corruption, often inefficient decision making that leads to compromises that often have little to do with the original idea. One of the biggest problems is that most democracies are democracies in process but not in content.
Even the process is not really strictly democratic, but through representatives that act for the people rather than the people directly who participate. Of course there is justification. If we would have every nitwit in the country decide what is best for the country than that could be scary.
However the problem is still process vs. contents. If for example through a new law it would be decided by the House and the Senate that half the government has to consist of the KKK then that clearly is a democratically taken decision, despite the content of the decision being very undemocratic.
Governmental forms that differ from democracies in the end usually have far more abuses of human rights.
One would have to search history to find a couple of absolutists whose ruling does not escalate.
I can think of Frederick II of Prussia for example, a so-called "enlightened absolutist". There aren't too many others. Charles v, perhaps ? Charlemagne ?
A pure monarchic form of government in reality only is fairer and better than the concept of democracy is that monarch approaches the perfection of God in terms of having the ability to do only good, be perfectly fair and having absolute wisdom and knowledge.
The fallibility of man, the conditions of man being subject to beliefs, passions, culture make that almost per definition impossible. Thus in hindsight, I never say that democracy is the best way of the government but the least worse one.
