The question before the Court in 1920 was whether 'majority will' can amend the Constitution, depriving us of a basic right. -- Sadly, the Court refused to give us a clear answer.
I'm not sure I follow your original point. Are you against Article V conventions for amending the Constitution?
Of course not. Root was arguing that [constitutionally speaking] such a convention cannot deprive us of inalienable basic rights, as our Declaration makes clear.
Ultimately, the right to amend our governing document is also a basic right of the people.
'We the people' do not have the power to enslave our neighbors.
Yes, we could. Would we? Never. The idea of requiring two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and three-fourths of all the state legislatures to comply is a sufficient hurdle to keep ideas like slavery from making it to the Constitution.
I doubt that. -- History shows us that 'super majorities' are capable of anything.
Given that the Constitution was designed as a limiting powers document, designed to protect our rights from gov't infringements; -- does it make any sense to let 'majority rule' amend away those rights?
First, I'd say that isn't just a majority, but a super-majority.
Second, I'd say that majority rule is the basis of how the legislature works, so what's wrong with it here?
'Whats wrong' is that it could be used to deprive people of inalienable rights, even enslave them; -- and you agree we have a 'right' to do so.
Third, the Constitution is established by "We the People," so what's wrong with the People having a direct path to amending the Constitution?
Nothing, as long as 'we the people' are limited by Article VI to honor our Constitution, as are ~all~ gov't officials. -- Apparently. you contend we are not. Read our Oath of Citizenship. -- All of us are obligated to protect and defend our Law of the Land.
After all, it is a government by consent of the governed, and one way of reminding the government of that is to let the people also have a path to amending the Constitution. Now, if the people are going to do something stupid and harmful to their rights, that's why you need two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures to concur.
Tell it to those who lost their lives to 'super majority' endorsed governments in the 20th century.
I think the answer to your question is there. Are delegates to a Constitutional Convention Constitutionally recognized officers under Article VI Section 3? Are electoral college delegates? If so, are they sworn in under Article VI Section 3?
-PJ