If your argument is 'They could do it man!' then obviously I have nothing to refute that. As long as we're going there then what's to stop them from deciding that The U.S. Senate is a violation of one-man one-vote? (2 Senators from each state regardless of population) As a matter of princple I feel more comfortable with the Constitution being guarded by those aren't subject to various popular whims then those who are. But I see your point.
As a matter of princple I feel more comfortable with the Constitution being guarded by those aren't subject to various popular whims then those who are.I agree that the Constitution should be above popular whim. Getting a super majority in both houses plus the president's signature (which is not even required for a Constitutional amendment) is no political cake-walk and a far cry from subjecting our laws to popular whim.
It certainly beats a situation we have now, which is that a de facto amendment can be shoved down our throats with the stroke of a pen wielded by 5 people who never have to answer to anybody.