As a philosophy or as a resolution to guide legislation this is great. A constitutional amendment is a very big deal and, even though it has no chance of being ratified, needs a lot of thought regarding unintended consequences. For example, I could make an argument to increase the price of my exclusive wonder drug by 10,000%, and “constitutionally” collect these fees for years while the courts adjudicate the validity of my pricing. As a developer, I could provide housing padded with arguably “constitutional” necessities. I can see property developers and drug manufacturers licking their chops should this amendment be ratified. I think in general terms, ‘“the pursuit of happiness” and “provide for the general welfare” constitutional phrases broadly address the resolutions. I do not oppose this amendment but I find it difficult to endorse without a great deal of study and thought about potentially adverse consequences and the requisite restructuring of governmental agencies and processes to support it.