Of course I cited the 14th Amendment as an example of the use of an amendment to correct or improve the constitution. That is because it was such, and it is such even if the crazy guy on the street asserted that because of the phase of the moon, and the color of his shoe laces that it is not valid.
So then that it did not garner the necessary ratifications from the states (3/4) is irrelevant?
Congressional Record:That the states are on record as being under protest due being denied guaranteed representation is irrelevant? Link
Senate, 84th Con. 1st Session., Vol. 101, pp. 7119 to 7124;
Senate, 86th Con., 2nd Session., Vol. 106, pp. 4036 to 4038;
Senate, 89th Con., 1st Session., Vol. III, pp. 10669 to 10671.
Please note that the USSC asserts that the [accusation of the] replacing of the republics ["states"] "is a political question" and not actually a matter at law, even though the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government.
A bill in equity filed by one of the United States to enjoin the Secretary of War and other officers who represent the Executive authority of the United States from carrying into execution certain acts of Congress on the ground that such execution would annul and totally abolish the existing state government of the state and establish another and different one in its place -- in other words, would overthrow and destroy the corporate existence of the state by depriving it of all the means and instrumentalities whereby its existence might and otherwise would be maintained -- calls for a judgment upon a political question, and will therefore not be entertained by this Court. -- Georgia v. Stanton
Again, you cannot simply say "because everyone says so" as a valid argument of correctness. That is as absurd as asserting that if every human were to declare God to be evil that God would suddenly become evil.
You are indeed entitled to your own opinions; you are not, however, entitled to your own facts.