First of all, some people are just born liars and thieves. They raise to the top positions in the government to be able to steal more. We know some of them. They are a well understood class, so I set them aside.
But there is another group of elected officials. They are, actually, keeping their oaths - but as they understand them. This may differ from what you think they should do. Here is a quick example. The state is in pre-war days. The ruler has two options: to fight or to surrender. No matter what he picks, there are always two camps in his state - one advocates for war (at a price,) another advocates for peace (at a price.) You may belong to one camp or to another, but chances are that the ruler will pick not the decision that you support. Can you say that the ruler broke his oath? Maybe yes, maybe no. It all depends.
In this case, a politician has to decide whether to support an independent, strong, conservative state - which is harsh to lazy, weak, uneducated, criminally minded. Or to support a welfare state that gives everyone a bowl of gray gruel every day and a cardboard box to live in. Which decision is right? The representative gave an oath to make decisions that are best for all his electorate. It may be that the welfare state is mathematically preferrable if, for example, the politician takes into account the riots, the civil war, and other inconveniences that will result from forcing the welfare recipients to take care of themselves. A remote observer will say that it's better to have 90 strong people and 10 dead bodies than 100 weak people. But no politician is willing to go out and personally shoot ten people who "are not fit" to live in the brave new world that he is building.
One could immediately say: "Hey, the politician ought to care for the country, not for those lazy bums!" - and in a way that would be also reasonable. But then the well known dilemma of Teela Brown rears its ugly head: "How many people are you willing to kill today to save so many people in the future?" Politicians are reluctant to kill anyone, today or whenever, for obvious reasons. But sometimes it is necessary - usually by adopting difficult political decisions that will cause harm in the short term but will result in benefits in the long term. The words for that are "shock therapy." And then we recall the meaning of the "long term" to a Congressman... there is no component of the US executive power that survives more than eight years. The legislative power is supposed to be that immortal brain of the country... but it is collectively senile for a long, long time.
So what's the executive summary of all that? It's simple, really. Faced with hard choices, politicians of all sorts tend to pick the easiest solution that does not kill their chances of reelection. Kicking the can down the road is a traditional pastime of an elected official. We may get all upset because Congress does not do X and Y, but Congress may honestly believe (or fool themselves into believing) that half-measures and tolerance of intolerable will work this time around, even though they never worked before. There aren't too many politicians who say what they think. Most of them are gently - or not so gently - pushed out of the public arena before they can damage the status quo. As Congress is a collective body, a lone rebel will not make a difference, other than to entertain with a filibuster. If the rebel becomes too annoying, he'll be taken to the back room and explained, in easy to understand terms, how one shall behave - or else. Rulers of this country *are* above the law when it benefits them.
That's why so many people are interested in spelling out, explicitly, in amendments, what the government is allowed - and not allowed - to do. The budget thing, for example, can - and will, if not stopped - destroy the country with more certainty than a hundred nuclear bombs. The US dollar is accepted today only because it is convenient to the trader. But the run from the USD as a store of wealth is underway for at least a decade.
That is why the senate must be returned to the states. Make the personal interest of senators coincide with the interest of their states.
For one, I guarantee that state appointed senators would never consent to leftist appointments to the federal bench. To be a leftist requires hostility to federalism/10th Amendment.
As long as we keep empowering that sort of politician, the kind who are more interested in reelection than in the keeping of their oath, and the survival of the republic, we’ll keep seeing the same results.
Our Constitution and political system cannot survive bad character in those we choose to represent us. It’s as simple as that.
And this plan does nothing at all to address that.
On its best day it’s a distraction. On its worst, it’s dangerous.