That sounds like Nancy Pelosi saying we must pass it first before we know what it says. We know these are amendments meant to prevent the legal erosion of things like traditional marriage and abortion. The language of these amendments is critically essential as history has proven. Amendments and laws hastily and carelessly drawn up have been disastrous, worst case probably being the Fourteenth Amendment. In decades to come SCOTUS will dissect every word of the amendment to try to construe what SCOTUS wants it to mean, so the meaning must be very plain and clear.
We should know from the outset (NOW) the approach to how these intentions are to be implemented in these amendments. I see basically two possible approaches: 1) tell the feds they must UPHOLD and ENFORCE traditional marriage and sanctity of life in the womb, or 2) tell the feds that they have no power over marriage or abortion, that those things are reserved to the states and the people.
The first choice would be a disaster because it would EXTEND federal power to a police power over the states and people. It would help create a police state. We need to CUT government power, not increase it. Also, government has clearly demonstrated that it is no friend to traditional values, so giving it power over these social issues will sooner of later boomerang.
The second choice would be preferable, but because it essentially repeats the tenth Amendment, leaving open the possibility that sooner or later SCOTUS will change its intended meaning. SCOTUS has a history of construing things like a law that repeats itself as meaning something other than what it says because, like they have said in the past, it wouldn't make sense to have passed an amendment that is already covered by the Tenth Amendment, so it must mean something else.
There's also another problem which also has a nasty history because government including SCOUTS is, like the fox guarding the hen house, always trying to get at those it's supposed to be guarding by "lengthen its chain." The first ten amendments were not originally intended to be "a bill of rights". Russia has a huge "bill of rights." The difference is in Russia the government grants them and can therefore take them away a their whim. But government doesn't grant us a "bill of rights." The basic assumption of Constitution, spelled out in the Declaration of Independence (D/I)., is that God made man inherently free and that governmental powers are only those DELEGATED and ENUMERATED by the people as spelled out in the Constitution.
The intense argument about creating the first ten amendments was that it would be construed as a bill of rights with the presumption that government held the power if it was not in these amendments. And in fact, that is exactly how they have been and are treated. But the presumption of the Constitution is the PEOPLE have the rights if not delegated to the government. The same would be true with this kind of amendment. It could be construed to mean that whatever is NOT in there is under the power of the federal government.
These thing must be carefully weighed NOW, not later, to consider what is the goal and the best way to achieve it. IMO, the best way to achieve what we want regarding these social issues is for the states to NULLIFY unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions, including Roe v. Wade which has not a scintilla of Constitutional-based reasoning in its decision because abortion is completely outside the Constitutional powers delegated to the feds. Same with "gay rights." Same with all the other social issues the feds are increasingly interfering with.
WHO is going to be doing all this “cutting to the bone,” if the same un-term-limited Congress is in place, for instance?
The American people by making politicians accountable and THROWING THE BUMS OUT if they don't cut taxes and government and keep them cut. Politicians have clearly demonstrated that they understand that language much more than the Constitution. The PEOPLE must hold the Constitution dear and must be, as Jefferson said, "eternally vigilant" against politicians who are inclined to do otherwise. After all, the same Constitution that created government is actually an anti-government document.
It will never be up to the politicians, it will ALWAYS be up to the people. The government is the fox guarding the hen house. The people are the ones making sure the fox's constitutional chain remains short. Amendments can enforce but not replace the job of a free people to watch the fox.
Since government schools don't want people to learn about the anti-government Constitution, they don't teach it. Hence many do not know nor understand the presumptions behind this great document which is the short chain on the fox.
OK; I’ll mark you down as a “maybe”.