George Mason was what we would call in modern terms, the sponsor of the bill in the 1st congress. He was the first congressman to hold the seat for the 1st district of Virginia. His bill was eventually split into 12 amendments. 11 passed the house, and 10 were quickly ratified by the states. The 11th eventually was ratified as the 27th amendment in 1992.

The idea that powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the constitution are retained by the states and the people is honored more in the breach, I admit.

Doing so assumes we were finished evolving, as an ethical and civil society, over 200 years ago. Doing so assumes that a small group of men, all of them white land owners, many of whom owned slaves, most of whom believed women should never have the vote, most of whom believed black and brown folks should never have equal rights, got everything right. Yes, many of them were brilliant; hell, I still greatly admire many of them, despite their many flaws. They did a fine job, given what was known and understood at the time.

But, frankly, I find arguments that leave no room for change, as is the case with religious discussions, to be boring (also incorrect, but, mostly boring). I've "been there, done that"...I had my constitutional libertarian phase a couple decades ago.

I would like to point out, however, that clearly the authors of the constitution did not think they had written a final document once-and-for-all, as evidenced by two things: 1) including three different means of amending the document, and 2) the very authors of the document proposed a package of 12 amendments as one of their first priorities during the first congress.

I would argue that there are only two ways to view the constitution: 1) it means what it says and if you don't like that, do what the authors did, amend it, or 2) make shit up as we go along. I'm for #1.

And, that's what I'm saying is wrong. You're presenting a false dichotomy. "But, muh Constitution!"

It's boring, and doesn't acknowledge the things that went wrong in all these years of the American experiment.

The only other option is to appoint some small pool of people to try to get us all to collectively pretend that the words mean something other than what they plainly say. That is the path to the rule of man, and I for one prefer the rule of law. There is no middle ground, give or take clarifications. And for clarifications, the burden of proof must be on the government, or the system fails.

Spoken like a true fundamentalist. I've heard that exact phrase from evangelical street preachers.

I understand what you're saying; and have understood it every time you and dbcurtis have said it (in a variety of ways). I am disagreeing with the underlying premise of it. I am not disagreeing that the constitution has built-in mechanisms to change it. I am disagreeing with you that the government the constitution has defined has any ethical right to govern people who did not consent to it. It doesn't matter if it can theoretically be changed, it is premised on a notion I reject.