The 'intent' of the Constitution was clearly elucidated by the Founding Fathers in their contemporary writings - including the reasons for certain compromises and their regrets for having to make them. Among that expressed intent was that the House of Representatives be the 'people's house', with the delegates elected by the masses, and the Senate be the voice of the States, with equal representation regardless of population or prosperity, appointed by the legislatures of the individual States - not 'your congressman'.

As to 'who gets to decide', the ultimate authority - according to the Constitution (or what little remains of it) - lies with 'we the People'. There exists an entire body of discussion regarding the necessity of 'minimum qualifications' to exercise the privilege (and yet another on such 'qualifications' for standing for election) - bearing in mind that no such 'right' is addressed by the Constitution, merely strictures on what criteria the joint and several States may not disqualify an individual for.

'All' Amendments are not necessarily in conflict: Amendments XIII, XV and XIX address certain of the 'compromises' in the original, while Amendment XVI is a clear violation of the 'necessary and proper' clause of the final paragraph of Article I, Section 8.

The Republic was forged in the fires of revolution against a government that ruled arbitrarily by whim; the Constitution was hammered out by the selfsame individuals who won that revolution and after the 'trial-and-error' of the Articles of Confederation, ascertained that the joint and several States were sovereign, but to bind them into a unified whole needed a central government that would neither infringe on those powers of the States where there was no detriment to the whole nor the rights of the citizens, yet was representative of the needs and 'personalities' of its constituent States and would constrain conflicts among them. Any Amendment need be examined on its merits, any that does not further that intent, or contravenes it in any manner, is by definition 'in conflict'.

As to Amendment XXII, had the Framers foreseen Franklin Delano Socialist, they might have made such provision in the original - yet had they foreseen Ronald Reagan, they might well not. They founded the Republic on the premise that an educated electorate, cognizant of the issues and the 'true identity' of the candidates - from President to town dog catcher - would make informed decisions. When the government annexed the education establishment and impressed them into the Prussian model, when unions 'organized' the teachers and pressured the indoctrination of the same socialist principles behind the 'union' movement, any such possibility diminished: An 'informed' electorate rapidly became an 'indoctrinated' one.

Given the intent of the Founding Fathers, and their philosophies of government and the concept of 'liberty', the difference between such 'intent' and the current application should be obvious - as should the alternatives.

Finally, an answer:

As to 'who gets to decide', the ultimate authority - according to the Constitution (or what little remains of it) - lies with 'we the People'.

I then submit you will entirely loose the second ammendment should your proposed amendment be ratified.

"we the people" under current law is any registered voter, and although you and I may not like that, it's a fact.

Sorry about the misquote on the Senators, but the point remians the same, and BTW, that discussion was in response to 03_shooters statement that every ammendment sicne 1791 should be thrown out, not you proposal.

No problem with either the misquotation or the intended 'direction' of the response, but some clarification of your position on 'registered voters': Thanks to a number of - let's call them 'political machinations' - a significant number of those are invalid, due to the 'minor details' of being, among others, illegal entrants, duplicate registrations, or deceased. Additionally, your 'Second Amendment' assertion is flawed, in that while the indoctrinated may have an apparent minimal numerical 'advantage' - as demonstrated by the recent election (and influenced by such nonexistent 'voters') - should armed insurrection be the final option, we're the ones with the firearms...and the training and the will.

Boomer,

As for your wife’s concern that someone would "take her right to vote away", rest assured, I'm not the least bit interested in taking anyone’s "right" to vote away, primarily because there IS not "right" to vote in any Federal Election, for her or anyone else, TO be taken away! The alleged "right" to vote is nothing more than a privilege extended to us by our individual States. Don't forget, We The People do not elect the President, the Electoral College does that. All we do is tell the members of the Electoral College how we would like for them to vote. As far as the vote is concerned, I have long advocated for a system by which everyone would be required to pass a test before they were permitted to vote, just as one has to pass a test before being permitted to drive. If you pass the test, you are issued your voting license, if you don’t, you don’t vote.

As for the XIII and XIV Amendments, all of the rights and privileges contained in those Amendments were already present in the Constitution itself, the reason the Amendments were adopted is because those Rights and privileges were being ignored.

As for the 17th Amendment, yes I DO want the State Legislature selecting our Senators. We The People already have our House of Representatives, but since the 14th and 17th Amendments have been ratified, the States have lost THEIR Rights, which is exactly why we have a federal government that has no qualms telling the States what they will and will not do, in complete violation of the 10th Amendment.

You also assume that there would be a Democrat and Republican President and Vice President. Article II states that the person receiving the majority of the votes (assuming a majority) will be President, and the runner up Vice President, did it not occur to you that the top 2 might not BOTH be Republicans, Democrats, or even Libertarians? Personally, having a President and Vice President of different parties really doesn’t bother me, and in fact might very well provide the balance that is missing when our government is fully controlled by one party as we have today.

16 years of Obama? Given the past 60 odd days, I’m not convinced that he’s going to make it the entire 4 years of his first term without being Impeached! He’s a walking, talking disaster, and even the Dims are acknowledging how badly they’ve screwed up by electing him.

Don’t be concerned boomer, I’ve been studying this subject for a very long time, and having the country that the FF’s actually meant for us to have is something that I’m very comfortable with.