I believe we should amend our constitution to include ethics enforcement. Statutes are easily gutted and ignored whilst constitutional frameworks are harder to break.

"Getting by" is not synonmous with working. I'd argue that most modern democracies are viewed as corrupt and faceing an existential crisis due to dark money, campaign finance, an infiltration of massive wealth and the abuse of power. It's also worth mentioning that many officials do not listen to statute. For example, the Stock 2.0 act. Back in 2022, almost 20% of Congress violated the act by not reporting trades on time. I would argue that constitutional frameworks can create indepdendent oversight bodies and enforce compliance just as easily as they enforce term limits and guarantee rights.

Rules existing does not mean rules are enforced. If that were the case, you'd be arrested in Alabama for wearing a fake mustache in church and making people laugh. My argument is that statute can exist and not enforced and gutted. Constituional frameworks are harder to gut and ignore making ethics more enforceable.

Your argument assumes an addition to a constitution can't be short and clear as clear as well. Statutes often include permissive language designed to allow backdoors which permit the exact behavior we want to eradicate. Constitutional frameworks, if done right, are harder to ignore and bypass. I'd like to also mention your feelings and gut is not a solid argument for a yay or nay in any case.

Your argument assumes a constitutional framework will allow for vague ethics language. It is often the subjective interpretation of the courts or relaxed interpretation by a legislator that allows a corrupt behavior to continue. Laws don't handle details, people do. The strongest way to limit subjective interpretation and useless penalties is by designing a framework baked into a societies governing document with a strict outline on how corruption, ethics violations, civil / criminal beahavior by elected officials are to be dealth with.