[joshuamorton]

I mean, of those 6, one (the 22nd) was passed as a response to the functionally one-party rule by FDR and new-deal dems in the 30s and 40s. Two (the 24th and 26th) were voting rights amendments that were functionally extensions of the 15th amendment, you know...one of the post-civil war amendments. And one (the 25th) was passed after the president was assassinated. One (the 27th) is a very popular idea with bipartisan support, and it still took 200 years to ratify.

I'd also reiterate that social factors have changed, we're currently in the longest break between amendments being passed since reconstruction. None have been passed in my lifetime, and the same group that says we should interpret the constitution extremely strictly is also the one that says that it's perfect as is and we should respect it and the founders great insights. That's not a recipe for changing it.

> Ideally we'd see less of "judges rule without interpreting it strictly,"

That's, just, like, your opinion, man. By which I mean that originalism isn't the only school of thought in regards to the constitution. By the time you've succeeded in convincing people that it is okay to change the constitution, you'll have also convinced them that interpreting it less strictly. Saying it's a living document but not a living constitution is an impossibly hard needle to thread.

And that's doubly true when "should the document be changed" itself becomes a political question, which it has. Something like 20-30% of the US will vote for people on a platform of "I will oppose any constitutional amendment". That's enough to block ratification!