Sure, all you gotta do is get 2/3rds of both houses plus 3/4ths of the state legislatures to agree. No biggie. LoL.
That's a far cry from:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
In other words, revolution is good for me but not for thee.
The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."
So the question becomes a) are our concerns about national power transient, or are they a consistent, ever-growing menace to society? b) Is it merely the agents of government at fault, and is the problem correctable through a change in representation, or is the problem structural. In other words, is the FORM of government destructive to our interests.
I argue that the form itself is fatally flawed. It is deformed, if you will. The agents of government do the actual work, but all the means are at their disposal. If such is the case, then we possess the right to alter or abolish it, amendment or not.
IMHO, the form itself is not flawed within the context of it's original intent. Perception of exactly what that form is has been deformed by the agents of government through sophistry and creative semantics.
Did you notice that the word commerce appears exactly once in the Brutus papers?