What would go in it?
I ended up starting to write one out again in another thread, but I've already posted about this before.
Some ground rules:
1) Work under the assumption that it will be followed. Even ignoring the sort of political power it would take to get such a set of amendments passed - I'd prefer to leave the government's circumvention of the Constitution to other threads. Negative thoughts belong elsewhere - this is working under the assumption that something positive can be done.
2) Similarly, 'every system will eventually get corrupted' -> one would hope to think that if a new set of amendments gets passed, then that means that, as various entities do attempt to corrupt the system, some of that can actually purged on observation and rethinking. We know we're not going to get 'perfect'. We want better than what we currently have.
3) Closing loopholes that the US Government is using to circumvent the Constitution is a perfectly valid suggestion, however, and very much in the spirit of the above. By all means, make certain Rights apply to non-US citizens, and still applicable in wartime. Habeas Corpus, for example. Similarly, every piece of the US Constitution is up for revision here, not just the first ten amendments.
4) Rights granted should not place a public burden. A real-world, social society should be able to make use of the new Bill of Rights no matter its current financial state, infrastructure, etc., so long as it has factfinders with critical thinking and logical skills amongst its skilled persons. This means that, as a rule, it is largely about what Government is not allowed to do, and sometimes what individuals or other legal entities are not allowed to do (e.g. slavery is actually unconstitutional). If Government is required to provide something, it must also be conditional on the Government performing some action. A good example of this is the requirement that Government provide public defenders - it's conditional on the Government actually bringing charges against people for crimes.
5) The rights need to be something that a judge, reviewing a law, civil or criminal proceeding, can be expected to consistently and reasonably enforce. "People should have a right to privacy." And "Corporations are not people" - the former might get malinterpreted due to being excessively broad and vague, while the latter is not going to have much in the way of meaningful effect outside of expressing sentiment. Make rules that can be respected and will be followed.
6) Giving concepts like 'corporations should not be considered people' proper treatment might require a fairly detailed concept of what should be done for something to be considered a proper legal entity, balancing the rights of humans and immortal legal constructs appropriately. This is fine even though it's not directly under the purview of 'rights' directly.