I’m confused. We do have an amendment process that has been used and should continue to be used. Are you saying that we should not use what the Founders put into place?
On the other hand, there are those who are calling for a Constitutional Convention, in which you could potentially throw the baby out with the bath water by opening things up to total change and not know what you’d get after the process. That is something that I would vehemently oppose, and from your comment, I suspect you would too.
I hope it would be understood that I do agree with the amendment process, but a look at some of the very ill-considered amendments we already have should indicate that the process does not guarantee good amendments.
We could cancel half of what is already there and end up with a better Constitution.
I stand by my position that there is nothing fundamentaly "wrong" with our Constitution, and a constitutional SCOTUS and POTUS and Congress could "fix" practically everything that has been bastardized overnight if they wanted to.
Any "ambiguity" is simply the result of (usually leftist) lawyers and judges "interpreting" for us. They need to stand down.