3. A mechanism that says that the public is not yet obligated to build a house?

The Sages wrote that the last of the three commandments that Israel was commanded upon entering the land to destroy the seed of Amalek, to appoint a king for them, and to build a house of choice, is to build a house of choice.
Is it possible to define that as long as the public does not observe the law and the destruction of Amalek, they are not obligated in the Temple?
Really like a child and a fool who has not yet reached the obligation of a mitzvah?
And perhaps in other situations where the people are not ready for the sanctuary (there is no 'and seek' the Lord their God and David their king, there is no ethical and moral standard, and a sanctuary without an ethical and moral standard the prophets warn of destruction, and in general why not most of your sacrifices) this is not a valid abrogation, but rather the public is not yet 'unable to be bound' by this public commandment.
Of course, the conditions were never met. In the first house, the Amalekite seed still existed, and in the second, the Amalekite seed also existed, and they had no king. And so, the Amalekite house did indeed wait, but the sacrificial work was carried out at that time in the tabernacle.
 
However, if we define the third commandment, or even the prophecy that your son will build the house for my name and you will not, as a boundary that is not yet binding, it will be easier for us to understand that the moral and ethical situation is not certain to be suitable for building the house for the name of God, and when it is not suitable, it is a commandment that those obligated by it are not yet binding, and there is no fear of abrogation of the deed.
(Of course, the question of the danger that security experts now claim is a danger is outside the discussion, and we found no one spared a soul for doing this.)