I emphatically endorse this post by Mike Rappaport at the University of San Diego School of Law’s Originalism Blog:
…the constitutional amendment process is essential to originalism and to a desirable constitutional law….
At this point, it would be beneficial to pass a constitutional amendment, even if it is a minor one, just to show that the process can still function…
If I had my druthers, I would pass a broad constitutional amendment that cut back on lame duck actions following both presidential and congressional elections, but that probably could not pass. So let’s just try a narrow one.
That we have drifted so far from the proper Article V means of amending the Constitution has only exacerbated the feedback loop of judicial empowerment and judicial supremacy. Rappaport’s take here is smart.