I think we have to carefully consider what Article V, like any part of the Constitution, can do and cannot do. The Democrats have recently become fond of quoting Dr. Franklin since they thought it might aid their unconstitutional quest for impeachment, when he said about the new constitutional government if ratified, "a Republic madam if you can keep it."
There are some things constitutional provisions can and do regularly. For example, since the 13th amendment we've had virtually no slavery (some of Chinese workers held in bondage in the Rocky Mountains states building railroads and digging mines and some white slavery today) and no slavery overtly sanctioned by government. The 13th amendment worked.
Such an amendment, or a procedural amendment that for example that requires a balanced budget is enforceable and likely would have profound changes just as we have seen by the 13th amendment and by the amendment providing for popular election of Senators.
Your personal story illustrates how fickle political opinion can be from generation to generation. I think we have to draw the distinction between the power of constitutional amendments to alter certain behaviors or to curb partisanship or, finally, to change human nature.
Our founders were wise enough to know that the Constitution could not change human nature, that is why they undertook to work with human nature rather than against it but to control it with enumerated powers, balance of powers, checks and balances and, later, a Bill of Rights. But the limitations of the Constitution to change human nature were recognized by the framers as illustrated by Benjamin Franklin in his admonition to the woman as he an exited the constitutional convention.
I think we have to be careful about the kinds of constitutional amendments we seek and that should come from an understanding of what we can expect from ourselves.
