The Judiciary need to have lengths of term defined.
Article 1, Section 8 needs to have more clearly defined restrictive language added to it.
There are a couple of other areas where language needs to be added, deleted or amended so that even the most ‘progressive’ judge cannot fail to understand that the Constitution is intended as a LIMIT on the power of the federal government, not as a template for expanding government power.
There are two methods by which constitutional amendments can be proposed. I sincerely doubt that two-thirds of ANY congress will EVER propose constitutional amendments to limit their own power. That means a constitutional convention demanded by 2/3 of the state legislatures is the only route by which the necessary changes can be proposed. Although I agree it is a long shot, I consider it a FAR more likely event than two-thirds of congress proposing the necessary revisions.
It requires no rewording. Only a congress with backbone. The congress may tell the supremes what is out of bounds. That is in the current constitution. It is ignored only by habit and custom, but the congress can put bounds on the supremes.