Originally Posted by JCE

No, it is worse. A proposed amendment approach is just a politicians tool - posturing for your electorate, drawing a line in the sand to look different from your opponents, or a platform for gathering campaign contributions. If it gets beyond the pose-for-the-media phase it will be proposed to congress by an elected member of congress, and after being chewed over like a rope toy in a kennel (committee and sub-com actions/debate, letters from voters, pressure group input, editorials, talking heads, finger pointing and name calling) it will be voted down or moved on to the next levels. Eventually, if it makes it that far, it must face ratification by a majority of the states, where the chewing over starts up again. After 2-10 years it MAY be approved and only then does it become real. If it is truly offensive to a majority, a repeal process like the above will begin. Prohibition for example, 18th and 21st amendments.

A non-amendment approach involves a direct effort to cause change to an existing amendment, and may be started at multiple levels of government, by a politician, a lobby group, a political party, by non-elected government officials, etc.. It involves lobbying and contributions at a city, county, state, and federal level to develop laws, policies, lawsuits, and procedures to nullify or cast doubt on the intent of the amendment in question. When/if enough local laws or policies which question, abridge, or skew the original intent of the amendment can be accomplished, they are used to convince politicians or officials at the next levels that it represents the will of the people (who usually never got to vote on it). Eventually, if the timing looks right - the make up of the Supreme Court looks tilted in your favor - a hand picked test case is presented to the Supremes where a simple majority can then interpret the 'real' meaning, again without voter input. The second amendment and gun laws, pro and con, are examples, with legal approaches ranging from attempts to outlaw all private ownership (SF) to requirements for all heads of households to keep a gun in their residence (Kennesaw GA).

Both of these techniques can be used on any amendment. The first option requires that the majority of the voters be heard, while the second option means the majority of voters face a much more difficult task in being heard. It is analogous to being buried alive in tons of sand instead of being crushed by a boulder. (Or from the other viewpoint, riding up an escalator instead of climbing a cliff face.)