>Because you need a lot more than three or four amendments, each of which might not be ratified. They would be separate battles, sure, but I think 3 or 4 amend

>Because you need a lot more than three or four amendments, each of which might not be ratified. They would be separate battles, sure, but I think 3 or 4 amendments would solve a majority of the underlying structural problems we face. A few well-chosen amendments would break our current congressional gridlock, allowing laws to be passed to further address systemic problems but don't themselves require constitutional amendments. 1. voting rights & auditability 2. gerrymandering / district drawing 3. campaign finance Just these 3 changes alone would radically shift the accountability and representation of politicians in federal government. It would be transformative in terms of policy shifts. >If you look at the list of lies told by trump, you'll find that they each need amendments to fix, not just laws passed, since it laws are only as good as a president that enforces them. This is not true. Trump is only 'protected' from Impeachment because the house is not representative of the nation. This is caused by (1) gerrymandering districts and (2) setting an artificial 435 maximum on the number of house representatives. Fixing (2) doesn't even require an amendment, technically, and would shift the electoral college such that Trump would not have won in the first place. >A parliamentary system is more useful. It would be interesting for a state to actually adopt a parliamentary system. >There isn't an oversight branch that enforces checks and balances, for example. That is the Press. There certainly could be more explicit legal protections to formalize the role journalists play in investigating corruption and whistleblowers.