This argument seems very convoluted. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like Sovereign Citizen level of nuttiness. The whole crux of the argument seems to boil do

This argument seems very convoluted. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like Sovereign Citizen level of nuttiness. The whole crux of the argument seems to boil down to the idea that using a statute to change apportionment in the senate avoids the Article V clause that prevents a constitutional amendment from changing senate apportionment without the consent of every state. A statute would avoid Article V, it won't avoid Article 1 Section 3, which states that each state gets 2 senators. His "Senate Reform Act" would be unconstitutional without ever involving Article V. All his other arguments seem totally irrelevant; trying to interpret a mess of other amendments as somehow consenting to a loss of equal suffrage is ridiculous. Even if you tried to interpret the 14th amendment as changing the apportionment of senators (a novel interpretation to say the least), it would be clearly unconstitutional as per Article V which specifically forbids any amendment from changing equal suffrage in the senate without the consent of that state. So either you try to change senate apportionment with a statute and violate Article 1 Section 3, or you try to change it with an amendment and run afoul of Article V. The only argument in this entire article that makes sense is their idea of amending Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 2. That can be changed, maybe that's where they should focus their efforts. But if you really hate the senate that much, your best option is to amend away all their powers and turn them into a purely ceremonial body.