Defenders of the Constitution.....a Question.

Once again we see arguments progressing from a false premise. The premise is not the ability or the need to change the constitution but rather the insidious creep of the Federal government into areas it has no business in to begin with and more to the point does not have the constitutional authority to be involved with.
The founding Fathers were creating a nation of States, with a central, limited federal government. The States were to be the great experiments, free to decide for themselves the amount of involvement they wished by their state governments free to decide what the state government would and would not provide. The federal government was there to “Promote the general welfare”. These 4 words have been quite a bane for the states. The federal government has perverted this clause to cover many of its incursions outside its constitutional limits. The words mean just what they say; the fed was there to keep the states in their many different experiments constrained by the constitution and under the constitution, to adjudicate disputes between states, to see that interstate commerce was free and without restraint by state tariffs or import/export fees. The fed also has its role in promoting the general welfare by its power to represent the states and see to their general welfare in the world economy. The power to Institute trade agreements, impose tariffs, set standards that products must meet to be sold in our nation, these are examples of the Feds role in promoting the general welfare, all within its proscribed limits.
It has gotten to the point that the problem cannot be fixed by the citizenry at large. It is time for the states to come together in a constitutional convention and reassert their rights under the tenth amendment and force the federal government back into its constitutional limits.

Once we get that done then the next thing we need to work on is the judicial system.

As a living document it can be changed you say. It only needs modification to fit into a corporate legal system. It was mis-represented to exclude certain individuals then modified to justify it. It takes individual persons and makes them non-corps. If we stuck to it to write laws, instead of changing it to write the laws we want, we would probably pull it off. Plus get rid of politicians and start making office a public service, not a life-long venture and don't pay terribly much to them to serve, might just remove some desire for a bloodline politician.