Yes, it does read that way; that has not prevented the courts from interpreting it to mean any mention of religion or religious practices is "establishing" a religion. Thus a specific direction is necessary. As someone else mentioned direction to the courts regarding the second amendment would also be good.

Some really excellent idea.
Re: the no confidence vote. Remember elections would only be held every three years, thus 50 per cent fewer elections than we currently have. The vote of no confidence would not require campaigning (just good governance)

Some amendments are quite good and I truly believe the American people would direct there legislatures to re-ratify them. The slavery amendments are completely consistent with the values of the Declaration of Independence. Even repealing the idiotic Prohibition amendment took more than a decade to repeal. My guess is inertia would keep few from being repealed,but these important issues (which ever issue we are talking about) deserve review periodically. Of the proposed amendments the 50 year review may be the least amenable and the easiest to live w/out.

I would prefer that to the extent any level of government collects taxes that it does it's own dirty work and not coerce private citizens into doing it for them. Having each State raise an apportioned amount of required Federal revenue would eliminate all Federal domestic taxation.

Why make it the private business owners problem?

I don't mind a consumption tax IF the private businesses are not required to do the governments dirty work and act as tax collector. Everyone submit their consumption tax at least each quarter as many sole proprietors and others do now for estimated income and payroll taxes. Eliminate all tax withholding by third parties.

If the 50-year review had been in place even once,
blacks could have been Constitutionally put back
into slavery, subject to being lynched while the
State governments sat on their hands, and deprived
of the franchise. Of course, most of that oc-
curred anyway, but at least the Supreme
Court was eventually persuaded to recognize
the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Voting
Rights Act was passed.--Sorry, you can't sell
it to me.

22 ensures that we don't get another situation
like the interminable one with FDR. And and elec-
tion every 4 years ensures that we get a chance to
get rid of the person after 4 years.

Part of the problem is that no one in the government is ever personally responsible for outright incompetence.

And, of course, its the people who have to pony up.

In my amendment regarding essentially review of the amendments after a reasonable period the 50 year review would only happen once, not every 50 years. As far as members of the armed forces are concerned I believe, thus my proposed amendment, the decisions of the federal government regarding peace and war have a much more immediate and personal impact on those members and being sworn to carry out lawful orders giving them a vote beyond citizenship gives them some apriori power to impact those foreign policy positions, thus giving them a vote for being in the service makes sense (to me, obviously not to everyone).
In theory, I could support ways to limit voting too, by some individuals (those easily distracted by shiny objects -- Bernie Sanders voters perhaps), but obviously the abuses of freed slaves and other "African-Americans" must be taken into consideration. And since power corrupts it is easy to see how Jim Crow could be easily revisited. Neil Neil Boortz's answer to too many voters with too little knowledge is to find a way to give extra votes to the successful in our culture (I think he suggested one vote for every $10000 in taxes one pays).
The amendment to "sundown" every law after a set period ensures that bad, obsolete or unnecessary laws go away. Issues of import should be reviewed by our representatives on and ongoing basis.
Freedom of religion has been assailed by groups with deep pockets and a willingness to sue to create pockets of Freedom From Religion. Thus, my Amendatory directive to the courts. Freedom of thought and conscience are sacred and must be actively defended. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction (R. Reagan)

I would repeal the 22nd because with the passage of the other amendments regarding designated positions (President, Senator, Congressperson, Supreme Court Justice -- see my lengthy "We the People" post above) being limited to 18 years (which I understand was the average "lifetime" of a supreme court justice for the first 100 or so years of the republic, the 22nd is superfluous. Changing the election cycle to 3 years with the "vote of confidence clause" reduces the constantly running for office we have today, yet returns the power to the people. While the term limit of 18 years give plenty of time to achieve things, yet clears the path of fresh, new people and ideas. There is nothing to keep a true statesman/woman from being a Congressperson for 18 years then being a Senator for 18 years. Tying Constitutional position's pay to the median income of their constituents reduces the appeal to people who lack success skills beyond charisma. My goal is to reduce the appeal of the positions to people looking for a job, but rather attract more mature persons who know how to get things done and don't need the money -- reducing their vulnerability to special interest influence. Hopefully reaching out to the George Washingtons of our time. Go to D.C. to get something done (not everything done) then go home
Anyone who loves sausage and/or law, should never see how they are made.