So, like you said, anything can change with enough democratic support.

If you don't like it, pass an amendment that doesn't allow any more amendments.

The government doesn't have the right to subvert the constitution.

I’m not even religious myself but I find that logic lacking

Dusty, you must not be aware that a republic is a representative government.

Uh...yes it does.

That's the point.

Our rights are inherited.

Not a privileged granted by the government or a service.

Then how are they so easily taken from you by them?

Amendments are literally subversions of the constitution

^^^

l;kajfk;ladsjhfl;kasf

The constitution keeps the fucking government in check.

Not the citizens.

They are privileges. You likely have no inherent authority or right to the things you're thinking of when you say 'right'.

Well, then, it was a bad idea to let the government change the constitution, wasn't it, Dusty?

Ugh... I give up, please, just please look up the constitution.

PLease read it.

PLease take the time to understand it.

It isn't there for the government to control the citizens.

The founding fathers were clear that *anything* in the constitution could be changed with enough support for an amendment

LAWS and legislations are for that.

We know what the constitution is. Get off your high horse. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're wrong.

This just in: the constitution is not a legal document.

The constitution tells the government what it CAN or Can't do.

Don’t like guns? You can amend the constitution to get rid of then

The bill of rights ensures the citizens their right.

We know that, but the government has control OVER the constitution.

Our government can establish laws that must abide by the constitution.

I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers didn't expect the US Constitution to last more than one generation.

Forbid religious majority rule ala Iran/Pakistan?

How odd that it had to be written in, then, if they're inherent rights.

This is why it gets changed.

The idea of inalienable rights depends upon the idea of divinity

Otherwise they're just rights that we all agree are for the best and should be respected

The idea of natural rights is nonsense on stilts.

If they didn't consider it to last more than a century, they wouldn't have stated that the "The tree of liberty from time to time must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

The point is that the constitution by its design can be altered; so all this legalistic argumentation is useless. We shouldn’t argue what is *in* the constitution that should or should not be followed; we should argue about the principles of the constitution and principles in general to see if the law needs to be amended thusly

What's your point?

They being just Jefferson.