The Federalist Papers proposed a model of government in which the participation of citizens is either unnecessary or inconvenient to make constitutional revisions. Legislators and judges would be responsible for adapting the constitution to changing environments. However, the possibility of involving citizens in an extra-legal reform of the political system remained always latent in the principle of popular sovereignty that the Federalists used to justify the legitimacy of the Philadelphia constitution. This situation never materialized in the American constitutional experience at the federal level but has been frequent in democracies that follow the legacy of the Federalists and face demands of radical institutional reform. In this scenario, which prevails today in several Latin American countries, it is imperative to rethink a system of constitutional revisions that deprives citizens of channels of participation to alter or replace the constitution in a peaceful and legal manner.