[E. Pluribus Unum]

If Constitutional Amendment's are so antithetical to our Representative Republic, then why did our Founding Fathers place them within the Constitutiuon a provision for them, moron.

What you are advocating is government by voter initiative, the very thing the founding fathers were striving to avoid.

Lucky for us, Constitutional Amendments are extremely difficult to ratify, especially those initiated by shrill, annoying, know-it-alls.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

No, I am not advocating a gov't by voter initiative.

If our Founding Fathers were striving to avoid voter initiative, and Constitutional Amendments are a type of voter initiative, then our founding fathers wouldn't have placed within the U.S. Constitutional framework the right of the citizens to demand from their Representatives Constitutional Amendments from time-to-time.

Since we have a provision for Constitutional Amendments, placed there by our founding fathers, we can see that Constitutional Amendments aren't a type of voter initiative.

As well, if having a Constitutional Amendment where the voters of each state could vote on banning same-sex marriage, or abortion within their respective states were a type of voter initiative, then I am certain that the Founding Fathers would have clearly spelled out that Constitutional Amendments could not be construed in such a fashion.

In the case of things such as abortion, and same-sex marriage, which Constitutionally were never meant to be Federal issues, it may very well be that a Constitutional Amendment is the only thing that keeps same-sex marriage from being rammed down the throats of the majority who don't want it, by SCOTUS majority rule tyranny.

Furthermore, A Constitutional Amendment may end up being the way that the abortion issue is sent back to the states, where it belongs.