"UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable."
Which has no bearing on whether something is unconstitutional, does it?
"UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That which is contrary to the constitution."
Right; Article V is part of the Constitution. An act of a court contrary to Article V is unconstitutional.
Ratification of an amendment pursuant to Article V is not contrary to the Constitution, hence it is constitutional. That such an amendment would override previous parts of the Constitution is the purpose of amendment, is it not? If you know how to amend a law without changing the law, I'd be real curious to see an example, together with an explanation of why an amendment that makes no change in the law is needed.
The 2nd Amendment contains no provision prohibiting its repeal. Article V provides a method for that repeal. Just as the 18th was repealed, the 2nd can be.
"UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That which is contrary to the constitution." --- Repeal of the 2nd would be contrary to the principles of the Constitution.
Right; Article V is part of the Constitution. An act of a court contrary to Article V is unconstitutional.
An opinion that a repugnant Amendment is unconstitutional would not be 'contrary' to Article V. Such opinions are part of USSC duties under Article III.
Ratification of an amendment pursuant to Article V is not contrary to the Constitution, hence it is constitutional.
Ratification of an amendment to repeal the 2nd, -- pursuant to Article V, -- would be contrary to all the principles of our Constitution, hence a repeal would be unconstitutional.
That such an amendment would override previous parts of the Constitution is the purpose of amendment, is it not?
Why do you want to give majorities a power to 'override' the right to bear arms?