May fortune smile on this effort.
I increasingly think that the federalism amendment is a sine qua non for any real reform discussion.

Governments perpetuate and grow themselves. That's what governments do. The original Commerce Clause etc. weren't ambiguous, they were simply warped over time and construed however the government wanted them to be construed, because the system is designed to allow and facilitate it. Even if the Bill of Federalism was passed and instituted, it would only be a matter of time before it was once again warped beyond all recognition.

Respectfully, I think you have misconstrued the point of Prof. Barnett’s proposal here. The issue addressed by this amendment relates to the substantive scope of federal power, not the process by which that power is exercised. This is so because the treaty ratification process requiring the advice and consent of two thirds of the senate makes it unlikely that a treaty will proceed to presidential signature and ratification unless, either the president’s party has an overwhelming majority in the senate, or there exists strong bi-partisan political support for the measure. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the treaty process can be used as a backdoor to advance policies for which there is little domestic political support (although in fairness, since at least the first world war, the executive has claimed the authority to reach binding ‘agreements’ with other nations that are implemented by executive order and do not require either congressional approval or senate advice and consent. These ‘agreements’ however are not justified on treaty power but on the executive’s power to control international relations – a power not explicitly granted by the constitution but justified by reference to the English crown’s authority over international relations for the realm and through a penumbral reading of those powers that are explicitly granted – the commander in chief power, the power to appoint and direct ambassadors, and the presidential portion of the treaty power)

Rather than seek to alleviate any concerns about short circuiting the law making process (which, for those dedicated to constitutional government is a critical concern in the era of the modern administrative state - don't have political support for a law, create an agency with a broad mandate and let the agency promulgate rules to the same effect) this amendment would seek to respond to the threat of creeping federal power over areas of liberty reserved to individuals or the states. There has been a long running debate in academia and the courts about the constitutional limits on the federal government’s treaty powers. Specifically, some academics suggest that the federal government may regulate areas otherwise beyond the reach of federal power. So, for example, during the United States Supreme Court struck down the guns free school zones act and the violence against women act because those acts were insufficiently related to the interstate commerce clause on which they were justified. Even though congress did not have the power to regulate those activities under the commerce clause, arguably, they could reach and regulate that activity through the ratification of a treaty. This amendment would seek to limit that practice and prevent that particular backdoor increase to federal power.