I think you are going against the design of the language here. With only
a handful of critical exceptional cases (None, True, False are the only
ones that come to mind), names can be rebound.

The following genuinely surprised me.  I was trying to show something different in reply, but I think the actual behavior makes the point even more:

>>> eval(repr(Ellipsis))
>>> eval(repr(...))
>>> Ellipsis = 42
>>> eval(repr(...))


This is *strange* behavior.  I don't expect every sequence of characters to round trip `eval(repr())`, but I kinda expect it to be mostly idempotent.

>>> foo = "bar"
>>> eval(repr(foo))
>>> eval(repr(foo)) == eval(repr(eval(repr(foo))))
>>> eval(repr(None)) == eval(repr(eval(repr(None))))
Obviously I know there are some repr()'s that cannot be eval()'d.  But this isn't the same concern as e.g. a file handle or a user class.
I don't find this issue any huge wart in Python, but it's a funny corner.  Here's a proposal I'll throw out:

Let's change the behavior of the Ellipsis object slightly to have either a .__call__() or .__getitem__() method that returns itself, no matter what argument is passed.

Then we could have this behavior:

>>> repr(...)


>>> repr(...)

I don't know which looks better, but neither look terrible to me.  That would produce a more explanatory repr() while also preserving idempotence.

The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the
not-yet born.  Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse
the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born,
become abortifacients against new conceptions.