There are two issues which are related, but not the same.
First: If there are 38 states which would ratify Amendments (or a new Constitution) which would alter our fundamental freedoms, we’re at war already.
Second, it’s correct that steps have to be taken to restore the relationship among the three branches to what was intended when they were created, which in our time means breaking the power of the Supreme Court. I don’t know that the amendment process (Article V or otherwise) is the best way to do this.
I think this falls short. "Steps have to be taken to restore the relationship among the three branches" and the several states. Let the states counter the Supreme Court's opinion of what is federal and what is state jurisdiction.
-PJ
> “Second, it’s correct that steps have to be taken to restore the relationship among the three branches to what was intended when they were created, which in our time means breaking the power of the Supreme Court. I don’t know that the amendment process (Article V or otherwise) is the best way to do this.”
You were on the right track until the final sentence. The federal government in its present mode of operation and ethical state will never willingly give up power of any kind. The only means to reform our federal system is by means of an Article V Constitutional process by the states.
The states were the first to form the federal system and the first to place limits on it.
Unfortunately, since the 17 Amendment, the concentration of power in Washington DC has grown to the point that a limit on federal power is not even on the table for discussion.
I will share a little later a few illustrations how the federal power concentration can be reformed to a healthy ratio with the individual states.
But first ponder the consequences of a successful Article V states amendment process to fulfill the new President’s call for term limits in Washington. Ask yourself do you expect a movement by the states to stop at the water’s edge of term limits only?