Sorry, but your Fiscal Responsibility Amendment is a Bad Idea.
Making the value of US currency highly variable by gold mines found or by technological improvements in transmutation or extraction from seawater is not wise.
Not that the process we have now is so great...
Agreed, but the more important objection is that the gold standard simply does not provide a stable value to currency in an economy with variable production levels, even assuming a constant gold supply. To see this more easily, consider a simplified economy that produces only one good, widgets. Assume that the dollar is pegged at some level to a constant gold supply. That would imply a constant supply of dollars in the economy. For the sake of ease of math, let the constant dollar supply be $1,000. Now consider what happens in our simplified economy. Suppose in year one, 500 widgets are produced. That implies that the value of a widget is $2. Conversely, that implies that the real value of a dollar is 0.5 widgets. Next year, however, the widget factories only make 250 widgets. The cost of those widgets would be $4. The value of the dollar has plunged to 0.25 widgets!
The gold standard has NOT eliminated inflation, which is the primary reason that its proponents give in its favor. The solution is obviously to allow the supply of dollars to change. With $500 in the economy we retain the $2 widget price, and therefore the 0.5 widget dollar value. That’s why a variable money supply actually works better than a fixed money supply. Of course, that’s in theory; I would agree that in practice the Fed typically does not maintain dollar values well, but that’s also not its only policy goal. Rigid maintenance of dollar value also has negative effects on economic growth.