Such an amendment is not needed. The Constitution is written in plain English, and is easily understood with anyone having a rudimentary education. We don't need to change the Constitution in order to explain what is set down plainly.
If it was so plain, you wouldn't think they would have been arguing about it ever since the constitution was adopted. General Welfare Clause Historical Debate and Pre-1936 Rulings
But there is yet another way. Just elect a president that will appoint justices that believe as you do for several terms in a row. Of course, first you got to get one nominated, and lately we only seem to be able to nominate liberals as the GOP candidate. And you'd also have to get the Senate to approve those SCOTUS nominations.
Like it or not, SCOTUS and not you or me, is set up by the constitution as the authority on the constitution. Congress can impeach them. The President can appoint people with differing views. If you can't win any of the three over with your arguments, then I don't see violent revolution being successful either. You'd just end up full circle.
Not making excuses. Just telling you what is.
Got a D+ in a constitutional law class back in the late 70's. I thought the constitution was a simple document that most people should be able to understand. If I took the same course today, I suspect I would get a F - -..