Fine. I acknowledge your comments about JR, and we could (and probably will at some point) have a great discussion about its historical origins in this country.
But I want to talk about your amendment...
" as long as the judges who use it feel bound at all times by the text of the Constitution, and so they did for 140 years, give or take a few. "
They no longer do. So what is the value of creating another amendment that leftist judges will either completely circumvent, or othwerwise twist for their own purposes?
And when they ignore the new amendment, what price will they pay? Will the leftist media call them on it? No. Will the American people stand up and hold judges accountable for subverting the Constitution, when they haven't for fifty years? Forget it.
You are a Consitution-loving Quixote tilting at judicial windmills. Any amendment taking a conservative position in the culture wars is dead on arrival.
The issue is the corrupt judiciary, and since mass ipeachment is not politically viable, the next best thing is to eliminate the power of judicial review.
Your claim that no Justices will allow themselves to be bound by an "Interpretation Amendment" is too broad. I draw a distinction between Justice Ginsburg and Justice O'Connor, for instance. Ginsburg would not allow anything in the Constitution to interfere with her selected political outcomes in any case. O'Connor, in my judgment, is not that far gone. I believe that O'Connor would obey such a clause, if it became part of the Constitution by amendment.
Besides, the Members of the Court are getting close to "biological retirement." Without going into the details, I forsee that the Chief Justice and Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg will all announce their retirement within the next year. The question then becomes whether the replacement Justices for those will be asked and will say that they will "accept and apply the (new) Interpretation Clause."
Your suggestion of simply ending judicial review is wholely misplaced. I'va answered that argument in detail on other threads. Suffice to say, that principle was NOT created out of whole cloth by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. To the contrary, there are six state court decisions holding the same principle at the state level, handed down before the Constitution was written.
One of those six, Caton v. Commenwealth, was decided by George Wythe. Wythe was the first professor of law in the United States. His students included Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and Henry, among others. The Framers both knew and respected Wythe, and would have been aware of that important case decided by him.
Your general premise seems to be that no Justices can be forced to obey and enforce the Constitution, no matter what. If things really are that bad, then a written Constitution is irrelevant, and it is time to take to the woods with guns in hand. I do not believe that. Do you?
John / Billybob