It would be nice, but the issue with these amendments is how they are worded. Forbidding fed interference is fine, except the Tenth Amendment already says that and the Progressives have ignored it anyway. Nevertheless, writing another amendment forbidding fed interference wouldn't seem to hurt, except that 50 years from now some Progressive majority in SCOTUS could figure out a way to say, "Well, they couldn't have passed the amendment to copy what the 10th Amendment says, so it must mean something else." They do stuff like that all the time.
The real answer here is cutting federal government and taxes to the bone except for our defense which should be streamlined, updated, freed of waste, and made the best on earth again. And force the politicians to do what they are sworn to do: preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution including the 10th Amendment. You force politicians to do this by throwing the bums out if they don't. That's the only language they really understand, Constitutional law and new amendments notwithstanding.
The amendments aren’t even written yet. It’s a process. What’s the point of railing against all these terrible amendments—that don’t exist.
And all this “cutting the federal government to the bone,” which you say is actually preferable to passing amendments.
WHO is going to be doing all this “cutting to the bone,” if the same un-term-limited Congress is in place, for instance?