Actually, there’s a fair amount of lurching side-to-side; moreover, zombies with sufficient damage to one side will curve toward that side over time.
In the situation the OP proposes it is far more likely for people to simply ignore provisions for amending the Constitution and simply draft a new one. There is precedent for doing so since that’s how we got the Constitution. The reformers of 1787 faced the same problems the reformers of 2123 are likely to face: the process is so cumbersome that it doesn’t take much resistance at all to make it futile. In any case, legitimacy is not based on dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. If enough people consider the new frame of government to be legitimate then it is legitimate.
I would suggest to the OP to read the Articles of Confederation then read up on how we moved to the Constitution.
Or all of the other parts of the constitution could be amended so that the only power the Senate has is to replace the urinal cakes in the Capitol building. And specifically deny them any budget for staff.
That’s only reasonable – a zombie which has been shambling andf/or lurching around for a while generally **is ** only 3/5 of a person. 
What we really need to worry about is immigrant zombies.
The “states” don’t have some independent voice of their own. A state is just the people who live in that state. And if the people chose to rewrite the Constitution on a national level, I don’t see why those same people would oppose that rewriting on a state level.
Couldn’t you just create an amendment that crossed-out the whole document? Then start from scratch?
Edit: Oops sorry, replied too fast, other people have said the same thing but better already.
No, because there are two things that cannot be amended:
-
Can’t outlaw the slave trade before 1808 (moot).
-
Can’t deny a state its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent.
There is no Article V authority to cross out the whole document. You must at least leave a state’s equal Senate suffrage in there.
Nitpick: you can take out equal suffrage in the Senate, as long as it’s conditional on the state’s consent. Basically, one could redo the Senate, but it’d mean that ratifying the change would require all states instead of merely three-quarters of them.
Yes. My OP specifically stated that there is enough support to make any applicable vote turn out in favor of scrapping the constitution. So, getting all the states to consent to losing equal representation is fine because either there are enough supporters in the state legislature to vote for it or the people are so in favor of it that they will vote for a pro-abolish equal representation legislator at the next election.
Does not compute.
Ok, how about this. We amend the constitution so that ex post facto laws are allowed. We still couldn’t pass a law punishing corporations for slave trade that occurred before 1808 no matter how much support we have.
I think that would be the only impermissible thing.
Yes, I agree that’s the only thing that could not be legally changed in the Constitution, even given universal consent.
Following the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Dead Scott case pressure to pass a Zombie Rights Amendment is growing. Last night, as zombie Congressmen staggered along the halls of Congress, looking to leap on anything with a heartbeat, insiders on the Hill predicted the ZRA bill would probably gather enough votes to pass in this session.
I’m not sure about that - as I read it, Article V says that amendments made before 1808 can’t alter the slave trade clauses. It doesn’t say anything about amendments after 1808. It would be perfectly legal, now, for an amendment to override the slave trade clauses in Article I Section 9, and then a law like the one you mention would be constitutional (except for the ex post facto problem).
By George, you are absolutely right. The amendment itself can’t be made before 1808. Repeal the ex post facto language and an amendment can be passed repealing the slave trade retroactively. So, yes, nothing that can’t be done with universal consent.
And even with 3/4ths consent, make the Senate’s only responsibility bringing the House members a fresh beer when they ask for it, and you have effectively repealed the equal suffrage problem..
As far as I know, it would be perfectly legal, procedure wise, to call a constitutional convention to suspend the constitution. Of course if that happened, I’d stop calling the survivalists money wasting nuts and join them.