Jacquerie,
Regarding your indication to this
post here, you indicate:
"1791. The bulwark of constitutional freedom is immediately strengthened with a Bill of Rights. 1795. Article III is further clarified in the 11th Amendment. "
Was freedom actually strengthened by adding the Bill of Rights? In Federalist 84 Hamilton actually argues that inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the constitution was "dangerous" and it would serve as a "colorable pretext" (excuse) for the government to intrude on powers not granted, and indeed that is the history of how we lost our rights, from the Civil War onward, with government now believing it is in the business of not only policing rights, but also awarding them. This has continued on into present day, with many believing those Rights themselves may be amended due to their inclusion in the Bill of Rights.
The 11th Amendment not only established the groundwork for State sovereign immunity, but also served for the pretext for immunity from even a State's own citizens, as in Barron vs Baltimore. The idea was never to create 50 little fiefdoms recreating British monarchism, but that is what happened, even to the detriment of our unalienable individual rights. Prior to the 14th Amendment it was a corrupt Supreme Court fabrication that those Rights did not apply to the States themselves, as a result of the Bill of Rights only referencing the federal government, which is an irrational construct. The founders never indicated it was infinitely preferable for the States to violate and disregard people's rights and property, rather than the federal government.
"1865. The 13th Amendment bans the British imposed institution of slavery."
The British did not actually impose slavery, but rather it was the creation of the local courts. In this country, slavery became instituted into law by the local courts, extending the terms of indentured servitude into perpetuity. The States themselves actually created slavery under law. The inappropriate inclusion of the 13th Amendment into the Constitution, particularly when nothing in the Constitution enslaved anyone, and given that it is a document intended only to construct the federal government, paved the way for the document to dictate rights of the individual, and for further corruptions such as Prohibition (18th Amendment).
In fact the history of amending the Constitution shows quite clearly how ill-advised most amendments actually where, with at least n 70% of the Amendments undermining the Constitution and decreasing our liberty.
In fact Article V was never intended as a tool to deal with our current problem, and rather only invites further undermining of the Constitution while serving to validate the present transgressions.