Government structure should be designed so that significant changes in policy do not happen quickly. The idea that the Senate is the saucer that cools down heated decisions made by the lower house is a frustrating concept in practice sometimes, but it avoids hasty policy changes that future generations have to contend with. At the same time, I do think that allowing over two hundred years to obtain sufficient states to ratify a constitutional amendment is not representative government, even if it does reflect the views of the current generation.
The one thought I have with the argument you’ve made is that government is an ever evolving network of individual pieces. People often create workarounds when the system isn’t operating efficiently or the way it was intended, and if you fix the system without removing those workarounds, the system will still be broken.
How do you decide how long should be allowed for state legislatures to ratify an amendment? Four years or less may have been the precedent until 1992, but is that for the best? Should it be open for a generation? Or until the children born when the amendment began ratification are old enough to vote for new state legislators?
Fascinating ideas on the governing process that you’ve caused me to ponder.