[ If, however, these amendments command the federal government to ENFORCE traditional marriage and the sanctity of life in forbidding abortions, that would be a disaster. Increasing the power of the monstrous federal government by handing it power to interfere with the states and individuals in these “social” areas is committing social and political suicide. ]
All progressive amendments tell the people what they can and cannot do...
All constitutional amendments tell the government what is can and cannot do to the citizens...
Prohibition was a failure because it told the citizens NOT to do something...
A prohibition would have worked a LOT better had it been worded as allowing states to ban alcohol, but it would be pointless because states have the power to do so already.
Actually, there's only one thing in all the Constitution that allows the federal government to interfere with an individual: the 13th Amendment which forbids a person to own a slave.
Again, the wording of these proposed amendments are crucial. They must simply forbid the federal government from interefering with these area we call "social" issues (marriage, abortion, etc.). Giving them more legitimate power via an amendment (vs. Roe v. Wade which is simply an unconstitutional SCOTUS decision that should be nullified by the states), especially in these "social" areas would be a disastrous mistake. The government needs to be shrunk not made more powerful.
You may agree, but it was hard to tell from your answer.