While I don't wish to fully address the main thrust of your article (although I think you're being overly idealistic, and will point out that nothing would get done in Congress due to the constant give-and-take necessary to make the bereaucratic wheels turn), I will ask, "Who's going to make the Amendment, if 'the boys are not going to do this themselves?'"
Fortunately, I'm taking a Government class right now, and can just quote from the book:
"A constitutional amendment must first be proposed, and then it must be ratified. The Constitution allows two methods of proposing a constitutional amendment: (1) by passage in the House and the Senate with a two-thirds vote, or (2) by passage in a national convention called by Congress in response to petitions by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Congress then chooses the method of retification, which can be either (1) by vote in the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or (2) by vote in conventions called for that purpose in three-fourths of the states."
There are four possible combinations of proposal/ratification, but all but one of the amendments used the two-thirds of Congress proposal/three-fourths of state legislatures ratification. "Only for the Twenty-first Amendment's repeal of Prohibition did Congress call for state ratifying conventions (principally because Congress feared that southern Bible Belt state legislatures would vote against repeal."
"The method of proposal by national convention has never been used." And rightly so. It requires the most effort, for one thing.
While I appreciate the sentiment behind which your article was written, if you can sneak an Amendment through without Congress shooting it down, please let me know, as I could probably come up with a couple more...
