"Uhhh, the ACLU-amended SCOTUS-Ginzberg-Breyer-Souter-OConnor-Stevens version does *not*."
So what would lead you to believe that a new and improved Constitutional amendment would be any more likely to be observed by the judiciary than the current one?
The problem is not with the Constitution, which is laregely sound, but the cast of characters who are interpreting it to mean whatever they think it should mean. You have to look at far more basic issue: should unelected judges with lifetime tenure be able to have veto power over laws that they don't like?
The answer in my view is a clear NO.
In my view until you address that very basic issue, all the Constitutional amendments in the world aren't going to fix the problems that we're running into. You go through the work to pass an amendment to the Constitution and the judiciary just reads it how it reads the existing Constitution: however it pleases.
"So what would lead you to believe that a new and improved Constitutional amendment would be any more likely to be observed by the judiciary than the current one? "
Yes, for one reason, that it would be explicitly passed to correct wrong SCOTUS rulings. They would be forced to correct the relevent rulings.
"The problem is not with the Constitution, which is laregely sound, but the cast of characters who are interpreting it to mean whatever they think it should mean."
I agree emphatically, and why I say a Scalia Majority is necessary.
But you seem to be arguing that this amendment is a band-aid ... well, even if so, if you are bleeding profusely, a bandaid wouldnt hurt, it will help. Let's not have the good be the enemy of the best. We need to address this on multiple fronts, it's a big issue.