An interesting take. Based on how you have responded, I would suggest you have no idea what brought our country here. Yes, there are some bad Amendments that need to be removed. But the most significant factor in our departure from the constitutional republic is the concerted effort by all three official branches, the unofficial 4th branch of unelected bureaucrats to ignore and destroy the constitution and especially its actual meaning through reinterpretation, and the media narratives that actively assist in this destruction while preventing the population from understanding what is really happening. Add to this internal corruption the outside influences of foreign nations and the powerful elite whom fund politicians campaigns and buy their loyalty with blackmail, the moral decay of the citizenry (encouraged by the corrupt who were incentivizing corruption in legislation and policy designed to increase moral decay), and the influence of fractional reserve banking on incentivizing and normalizing poor financial choices within the population and destroying the value of our money.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the preamble of the original constitution. Specifically the meaning of "in Order to form a more perfect union". The significance being that the founding fathers recognized the constitution they were proposing for ratification was much better than the Articles of Confederation but it is not perfect in itself. Had they believed it to be the perfect constitution for government, they would not have provisioned for the amendment process.

So rather than my statement being self contradictory as you would like to suggest, it is actually consistent as I am proposing amendments exactly within the framework instituted by the original constitution. In operating entirely within that framework and since the amendments I'm proposing are not designed to or intended to upend the original constitution in a manner inconsistent with a constitutional republic, I am by definition advocating for living under the constitutional republic that is like the one originated by the founding fathers. Like meaning similar not exact and generally like meaning a government operating in the same spirit as the founding fathers intended. The founding fathers clearly believed there should be an amendment process that would be utilized to address and further perfect the constitution in areas where a national problem exists. Amendments would be proposed and ratified to resolve a persistent national issue that required a solution which would ultimately impact how the federal government functions or how the states relate to the federal government. Obviously the amendment process has been used many times already.

Thus it is consistent that I propose we remove at least two existing amendments and replace them with term limits on Congress and a stronger clause identifying that states do have a significant amount of autonomy and self sovereignty within this republic as we have watched over the past 150+ years an incredible erosion of state sovereignty by cleverly worded arguments in the executive and judicial branches that have sidestepped, dismissed, or ignored the state sovereignty; or we have seen the legislative branch write laws specifically designed to sidestep constitutional challenge while operating in the opposition to the original intent and meaning of the limitations in the constitution on the federal government in state affairs. In short I want a stronger provision to state these erosion against state sovereignty should not occur. Powers not enumerated to the federal government and not prohibited from the states by the constitution (and amendments) are reserved for the states clearly did not account for the federal government putting rules on the state's through money appropriations with compliance strings attached.

If those ideas aren't your cup of tea, then fear not. With ratification requiring 75% of the states legislators (or 75% of the states represented at a convention of states organized to consider said amendment) to approve the proposed amendment, it is very unlikely any of these ideas become an actual constitutional amendment.

In closing, suggesting I think I know better than the founding fathers is a straw man argument meant to distract from the specific ideas I am proposing. We now have 233 years of history to view how things have progressed since the ratification of our constitution. Things are quite off the rails at this point. Some clever loopholes have been exploited over that time to sidestep the original intent of the constitution and other times the government chose to just ignore the constitution. We can fix the loopholes by amending the constitution so that it is clearly defined that those methods of sidestepping are not allowed. We can fix the government ignoring the constitution by becoming a fully engaged citizenry who is constantly watching for this behavior and who challenges such illegal government usurpation of enumerated powers in the appropriate legal manners afforded to us to redress our grievances. Of course this all assumes that we get to a point where our nation rolls back or eliminates the unconstitutional bloat that is the majority of our government today.

An interesting take. Based on how you have responded, I would suggest you have no idea what brought our country here. Yes, there are some bad Amendments that need to be removed. But the most significant factor in our departure from the constitutional republic is the concerted effort by all three official branches, the unofficial 4th branch of unelected bureaucrats to ignore and destroy the constitution and especially its actual meaning through reinterpretation, and the media narratives that actively assist in this destruction while preventing the population from understanding what is really happening. Add to this internal corruption the outside influences of foreign nations and the powerful elite whom fund politicians campaigns and buy their loyalty with blackmail, the moral decay of the citizenry (encouraged by the corrupt who were incentivizing corruption in legislation and policy designed to increase moral decay), and the influence of fractional reserve banking on incentivizing and normalizing poor financial choices within the population and destroying the value of our money.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the preamble of the original constitution. Specifically the meaning of "in Order to form a more perfect union". The significance being that the founding fathers recognized the constitution they were proposing for ratification was much better than the Articles of Confederation but it is not perfect in itself. Had they believed it to be the perfect constitution for government, they would not have provisioned for the amendment process.

So rather than my statement being self contradictory as you would like to suggest, it is actually consistent as I am proposing amendments exactly within the framework instituted by the original constitution. In operating entirely within that framework and since the amendments I'm proposing are not designed to or intended to upend the original constitution in a manner inconsistent with a constitutional republic, I am by definition advocating for living under the constitutional republic that is like the one originated by the founding fathers. Like meaning similar not exact and generally like meaning a government operating in the same spirit as the founding fathers intended. The founding fathers clearly believed there should be an amendment process that would be utilized to address and further perfect the constitution in areas where a national problem exists. Amendments would be proposed and ratified to resolve a persistent national issue that required a solution which would ultimately impact how the federal government functions or how the states relate to the federal government. Obviously the amendment process has been used many times already.

Thus it is consistent that I propose we remove at least two existing amendments and replace them with term limits on Congress and a stronger clause identifying that states do have a significant amount of autonomy and self sovereignty within this republic as we have watched over the past 150+ years an incredible erosion of state sovereignty by cleverly worded arguments in the executive and judicial branches that have sidestepped, dismissed, or ignored the state sovereignty; or we have seen the legislative branch write laws specifically designed to sidestep constitutional challenge while operating in the opposition to the original intent and meaning of the limitations in the constitution on the federal government in state affairs. In short I want a stronger provision to state these erosion against state sovereignty should not occur. Powers not enumerated to the federal government and not prohibited from the states by the constitution (and amendments) are reserved for the states clearly did not account for the federal government putting rules on the state's through money appropriations with compliance strings attached.

If those ideas aren't your cup of tea, then fear not. With ratification requiring 75% of the states legislators (or 75% of the states represented at a convention of states organized to consider said amendment) to approve the proposed amendment, it is very unlikely any of these ideas before an actual constitutional amendment.

In closing, suggesting I think I know better than the founding fathers is a straw man argument meant to distract from the specific ideas I am proposing. We now have 233 years of history to view how things have progressed since the ratification of our constitution. Things are quite off the rails at this point. Some clever loopholes have been exploited over that time to sidestep the original intent of the constitution and other times the government chose to just ignore the constitution. We can fix the loopholes by amending the constitution so that it is clearly defined that those methods of sidestepping are not allowed. We can fix the government ignoring the constitution by becoming a fully engaged citizenry who is constantly watching for this behavior and who challenges such illegal government usurpation of enumerated powers in the appropriate legal manners afforded to us to redress our grievances. Of course this all assumes that we get to a point where our nation rolls back or eliminates the unconstitutional bloat that is the majority of our government today.

An interesting take. Based on how you have responded, I would suggest you have no idea what brought our country here. Yes, there are some bad Amendments that need to be removed. But the most significant factor in our departure from the constitutional republic is the concerted effort by all three official branches, the unofficial 4th branch of unelected bureaucrats to ignore and destroy the constitution and especially its actual meaning through reinterpretation, and the media narratives that actively assist in this destruction while preventing the population from understanding what is really happening. Add to this internal corruption the outside influences of foreign nations and the powerful elite whom fund politicians campaigns and buy their loyalty with blackmail, the moral decay of the citizenry (encouraged by the corrupt who were incentivizing corruption in legislation and policy designed to increase moral decay), and the influence of fractional reserve banking on incentivizing and normalizing poor financial choices within the population and destroying the value of our money.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the preamble of the original constitution. Specifically the meaning of "in Order to form a more perfect union". The significance being that the founding fathers recognized the constitution they were proposing for ratification was much better than the Articles of Confederation but it is not perfect in itself. Had they believed it to be the perfect constitution for government, they would not have provisioned for the amendment process.

So rather than my statement being self contradictory as you would like to suggest, it is actually consistent as I am proposing amendments exactly within the framework instituted by the original constitution. In operating entirely within that framework and since the amendments I'm proposing are not designed to our intended to upend the original constitution in a manner inconsistent with a conditional republic, I am by definition advocating for living under the constitutional republic that is like the one originated by the founding fathers. Like meaning similar not exact and generally like meaning a government operating in the same spirit as the founding fathers intended. The founding fathers clearly believed there should be an amendment process that would be utilized to address and further perfect the constitution in areas where a national problem exists. Amendments would be proposed and ratified to resolve a persistent national issue that required a solution which would ultimately impact how the federal government functions. Obviously the amendment process has been used many times already.

Thus it is consistent that I propose we remove at least two existing amendments and replace them with term limits on Congress and a stronger clause identifying that states do have autonomy and self sovereignty within this republic as we have watched over the past 150 years an incredible erosion of state sovereignty by cleverly worded arguments in the judicial branch that have sidestepped, dismissed, or ignored the state sovereignty; or we have seen the legislative branch write laws specifically designed to sidestep constitutional challenge while operating in the opposition to the original intent and meaning of the limitations in the constitution on the federal government in state affairs. In short I want a stronger provision to state these erosion against state sovereignty should not occur. Powers not enumerated to the federal government and not prohibited from the states by the constitution (and amendments) are reserved for the states clearly did not account for the federal government putting rules on the state's through money appropriations with compliance strings attached.

If those ideas aren't your cup of tea, then fear not. With ratification requiring 75% of the states legislators (or 75% of the states represented at a convention of states organized to consider said amendment) to approve the proposed amendment, it is very unlikely any of these ideas before an actual constitutional amendment.

In closing, suggesting I think I know better than the founding fathers is a straw man argument meant to distract from the specific ideas I am proposing. We now have 233 years of history to view how things have progressed since the ratification of our constitution. Things are quite off the rails at this point. Some clever loopholes have been exploited over that time to sidestep the original intent of the constitution and other times the government chose to just ignore the constitution. We can fix the loopholes by amending the constitution so that it is clearly defined that those methods of sidestepping are not allowed. We can fix the government ignoring the constitution by becoming a fully engaged citizenry who is constantly watching for this behavior and who challenges such illegal government usurpation of enumerated powers in the appropriate legal manners afforded to us to redress our grievances. Of course this all assumes that we get to a point where our nation rolls back or eliminates the unconstitutional bloat that is the majority of our government today.