Constitutional law is complicated and decisions are hardly ever, if ever, based on just what the language of the Constitution says. Justice Breyer notwithstanding, precedent is important, and history and culture have had a lot to do with SCt. decisions in the past. I'm sure you're not holding your breath waiting for your Constitutional Amendment to be taken up or even proposed - there are plenty of people in the other two branches who would deny the Supreme Court has the last word on "unconstitutional" now - they're not about to say so in writing in the Constitution.I find it amazing that people still talk of the court as if it really looks at the written US Constitution and rules on it based on what it says. Justice Breyer is on record as wanting to rule without respect to language, history, precedent, culture--you name it.
I would like to see the US Constitution amended as follows. I'm not a lawyer, so the language may be imprecise, but here goes;
No federal judge or panel of judges below the US Supreme Court may strike down a law as being unconstitutional. Only the US Supreme Court may declare a law unconstitutional and only then by a majority of at least 6-3. 5-4 decisions are binding only on the litigants, are not the law of the land, and the US president is under no constitutional obligation to enforce them. And last but not least, the US Constitution may only be amended by the means specified in the text. Supreme Court decisions, even 6-3 or better, shall not be deemed to be amendments to the Constitution.