Your amendment is so full of holes and inconsistencies that it will never be taken seriously.
For example, your amendment cannot coexist with the 16th Amendment. You would have to first repeal the 16th Amendment.
But once the 16th is repealed, your section 5 which is inconsistent with your section 1, would be unconstitutional, and your section 6 would be unnecessary due to the uniformity clause. And the list just goes on and on.
In short, your amendment looks like an amateur’s exercise in making a list of rants look like some sort of edict.
I’ll tell you what, get just 2 members of Congress to sponsor your amendment, and I will reconsider my judgement that your amendment is rubbish.
Why is that? Can't an amendment modify other amendments? If not, then explain how the 21st modified (by repealing) the 18th.
In short, your amendment looks like an amateur’s exercise in making a list of rants look like some sort of edict.
Why thank you; I am an amateur when it comes to law. In fact, I suspect that I could not become a [successful] lawyer precisely because I am a constitutionalist and tend to argue from the Constitution. (Such things are, apparently, a no-no in today's case-law driven jurisprudence.)
I’ll tell you what, get just 2 members of Congress to sponsor your amendment, and I will reconsider my judgement that your amendment is rubbish.
Ok; I just might send `em off.
Oh, wait, I forgot they're no-longer impacted by physical-mail.
How about calling them?
There's not significant evidence that their staff would forward the idea on.
So, how would you recommend getting their ear in the matter?
Or are you trying to foist the impossible task on me? (I suspect you already know how insulated congressmen are, especially to those not in their districts.)