I mean, seriously, I have never seen anyone argue such a bizarre approach to the constitution. You seriously need to step back and examine exactly what you are proposing, and think why NO ONE else in the country, hell, the world, thinks it should be done your way.
The only thing I wonder is why you persist again and again to mischaracterize my position. Did you read my post #190 and comprehend what I wrote? Apparently not. Let me repeat it real slow for you so your lips don't get tired while reading it,
"I have never said nor do I favor "continually passing constitutional amendments to accomplish the same thing as they are ignored by activist courts." The process is difficult and should only be used to resolve hard issues. It has been and will be rare.
I did read and comprehend it.
I just wondered why you continue to advocate an approach that bascially no other person has ever advocated - passing new amendments to re-state what is already in an amendment that has been ratified.
I have never seen anyone except you advocating such a postion.
BTW, if you want, here's more information on why you're wrong.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=2869