Here's the response to that question, from the Convention of States website:
"When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology. Even though it is obvious to all reasonable Americans that the federal government is violating the original meaning of the Constitution, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language. Amendments at a Convention of States today will be written with the current state of the federal government in mind. The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal.
Sorry, but someone has delusions of grandeur. The language the founders used was unequivocal. What could be more plain than "shall not be infringed"? How do you add to such a proscription? Will I will beat down your M-Fing mamma if you add any rules to that" say more plainly that it is a right to be and remain unencumbered with rules? There were the snakes of the legal profession even then, there will always be some SOB who will find a way to twist the original intent for fun or profit. There was no doubt as to the meaning of the Constitution when it was written, and had there been any the matters were thoroughly discussed in public media of the day.
There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be legitimately broken. For example, the General Welfare Clause could be amended to add this phrase: 'If the States have the jurisdiction to spend money on a subject matter, Congress may not tax or spend for this same subject matter.'
Then the arguments would be over jurisdiction.
It was written to say the Federal Government takes care of A, B, C, D, leaves it's grubby tendrils off of the following specific Rights, and all else belongs to the States and the People.
It doesn't get much more plain than that, If the Federal Government had no jurisdiction over the privy, then it should have no power to say how much water goes down the pipe with a flush.
But the ink wasn't dry on the ratification documents before the meaning was being parsed and twisted, and by 1850 the drums of the secession movement were already beating. In less than 100 years, well under!! an entire region was ready to break away in dissatisfaction over the way the document was being interpreted. and the laws made thereby.
"In addition to this, it should be noted that the federal government has not violated the amendments passed in recent years. Women’s suffrage, for example, has been 100% upheld."
Really? Define "income". Is the exchange of a board for a duck income? Or is it an exchange? If I give you equal value for equal value, who made anything? There is no income. So is it with the exchange of my time and skill for a piece of paper. It is an exchange. Yet the government says I made an income. If I exchange less time or skill, then I get less for it, just like exchanging lumber for coal, yet the government wants to tax the alleged value of each transaction as if there was an appreciation in the value of either, and calls that amount of the value of either exchange "income".
Yeah, the meaning changed. What we call "unearned income" now was "income" then. So yes, somewhere in the library of tax code, the sixteenth has been tap danced all over. When the Prohibition of alcohol went out of effect, the Government retained the 'power' to regulate whatever you consume, be that food, pharmaceutical, or otherwise. It took some twisting, but where in the original (either Constitution or amendments) was the Federal Government granted the power to decide what you eat, smoke, or drink, aside from beverages containing alcohol, and that only by Constitutional Amendment (because it had NO such purview).
The list of usurpation goes on, including the use of tax money distributed to the states used as a bribe or blackmail to get the states to enact (not Federal laws, technically) laws which the Federal Government writes, in order to continue to receive or to receive that money. Call it bribery, call it blackmail, but it has that stench of compulsion and the reek of overreach.
You won't prevent that with words. There will always be some zipperhead who will argue over the meaning of "is". The only way to defeat such is an engaged, educated populace who love Liberty and jealously guard it. We have plainly enough written laws with documented intent, just as the Constitution was plainly written in its day. The "modern interpretation" of those laws comes from redefining words in popular usage and using those redefinitions to change the original meaning of the phrase. "General Welfare" is a fine example. "Interstate Commerce" is another, and "Income" is one we can all relate to.
Without the final sanction of the capability of withdrawal from the compact, the relationship of the Federal Government to the States/People remains >slap!< '
Now go get me a sandwich, bitch, and like it!--Or I'll kick your ass! ' Ask Wyoming, where the EPA tried to 'give away' a million+ acres of the State and put it under Federal purview through the BIA, after the EPA failed miserably to prove that fraccing had damaged groundwater--an action which would have not only put the property and test wells the EPA had constructed under Federal control, but would have changed toe fundamental form of government for private property owners as well (not to mention scooped up producing oil fields).
We are past negotiation without at least having the option for divorcement from the agreement. Otherwise, all that would remain (to continue the analogy) is 'death do us part'.