I must have mistaken your contrasting academic and ideological as an implicit preference to the academic over the ideological, I did that simply because I presu

I must have mistaken your contrasting academic and ideological as an implicit preference to the academic over the ideological, I did that simply because I presumed that you were against the ideological. While I concede the point on not doing it in an extralegal means, I was wrong technically, I have a hard time reading the points in the articles and seeing how the foundational elements, such as a balance of powers, are preserved in what's put forward. From extending presidents and vice-presidents beyond their terms into 'guardians' seems to presuppose that such wasn't thought of by the founders, or that the solution they gave us (in this case the SCOTUS) isn't working. So my issue is that the items that are being proposed are, in many instances, aimed at compromising key, and functioning, and often best of class, principles. Again I put forward the item at the end where it mentions the example of the Articles of Confederation being completely scrapped. We are under some illusion that humanity has changed more than it really has. Much of the core components of the Constitution have not become irrelevant. Even the point in the article where it mentions that the US has the least generic constitution, as if that were indicative of efficacy or the optimal. Certainly there's room for improvement, but to change the fundamentals, and in such sweeping ways, is really not advisable.