From what I can tell the quoted proposed amendment was a line in an interview, and meant to get across the general principle, I don't know if he fleshed it out

From what I can tell the quoted proposed amendment was a line in an interview, and meant to get across the general principle, I don't know if he fleshed it out elsewhere in a more exact manner. So your comments about the inadequacy or clumsiness of the wording, or inadequate sourcing are fair. As are criticisms of my own clumsiness in trying to connect the principle of equal treatment under law to the idea that taxes and regulations should also be equally applied as written. > under the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. It should be admitted that the existing federal amendments weren't enough to convince the proponents of the ERA that there was enough protection from laws discriminating on sex. You can add the uniformity clause of article 1 to constitutional provisions that could have limited the ability of the federal government to subsidize some businesses at the expense of others, but neither it or the 14th amendment did. The constitution-as-interpreted does not stop congress, state, and local governments from being able to grant exemptions from a range of taxation and regulations to specific businesses by name. Courts don't believe that this violates any existing constitutional restriction, though I'm arguing that it does violate the spirit or principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment under law. It's the source of a great deal of corruption and abuse of the powers of government, and would seem to require a constitutional constraint on congress to reduce it since democratic incentives don't seem to work and actually seem to make it worse. Existing constraints aren't broad enough, and perhaps Hayek's is too broad for your taste, or perhaps you believe the goal can be achieved without resort to the constitution. It doesn't change the argument that there are inadequate restrictions on the worst forms of corporate welfare, if you agree that we should have less of that sort of thing. Is your argument that there is no possible amendment that would thread the needle of preventing corporate welfare like the Amazon subsidies without severely restricting all congressional action? Or do you have wording that you think might? Maybe Jack Markell's proposed law which is mentioned in the article is good enough, but I'd like to see something that restricts the transfer of money from the general population to the best off and that would prevent moral travesties like giving billions of taxpayers' money to one of the most successful companies in history or professional sports teams.