To PR, the only worthwhile amendments are of a structural nature, like repeal of the 17th Amendment and term limits, . . . amendments that cannot be ignored or "interpreted" by Scotus.
Of course, you have asked the same question before, and I responded the same once again.
<>If all three branches of the federal government refuse to obey the existing Constitution, why would they obey an amended Constitution? <>
Repeal the 17A, restore federalism and watch.
We already have term limits in place - it’s called voting. Don’t like the pol? Vote against them. Term limits stifle freedom of speech, as do limits on campaign contributions. If you are going to call for term limits, then you need to call for campaign contribution limits as well - I guess that means you are happy D’souza was arrested? Why do you hate freedom of speech so much? Hell, might as well just do away with the 1st Amendment, while we’re at it!
Repeal the 17A, restore federalism and watch.Seriously? I hope you don't really think that would be the only outcome (if that) of a COS
Not a solution. Prior to the 17th Amendment, there were also problems with Senators and corruption. Think New York's Tammany Hall, California's U.S. Senator George Hearst, and the Senators involved in the Crédit Mobilier scandal.
Do you think the state legislatures would pick anything better than the current batch of cretins? If so, on what basis other than crony capitalism (and the occasional bribe)?
restore federalism and watch.
Easier said as a slogan than done. Repeal of the 17th Amendment is an inadequate solution. Even if it were a step in the right direction (debatable given pre-17th Amendment history), it's simply not enough to restore federalism.
This brings us full circle to the original issue I raised. Multiple amendments would be required to restore federalism. Yet a government that shreds the Constitution today certainly isn't going to obey new amendments to it that divest power from fedgov and the Uniparty.