The constitution was recognized as a higher order government because its ratification was by conventions of reps of the people.
The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established . . .
Not true. State conventions were old hat by 1787. They went way back to early colonial times. The states themselves convened the federal convention of 1787. Congress had nothing to do with it. For you to claim the confederation congress called the convention, is like me calling for the Florida legislature to meet next month. My call will have nothing to do with its meeting.
. . . lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution
To amend the articles, the confederation required unanimous consent of state legislatures. Several attempts were made to amend the articles regarding tariffs and commerce, but RI consistently prevented amendments. It was this practical impossibility to amend that prodded the states (minus RI) to convene in 1787.
and removing Congress from the approval process.
The federal convention advanced the draft constitution to congress. Congress could have tabled it, or thrown it away. Instead, it passed the constitution on to the several states for ratification by the people. Congress was certainly involved.
Given these facts, it would be unwise to assume that ratification of the convention’s proposals would necessarily require the approval of 38 states, as the Constitution currently specifies.
Huh?
So what you are saying is the rule change that happened before in 1787, happened because of the way it was set up at the time and that the constitution is now ironclad in that a rule change could not be possible in an Article Five constitutional convention?
Interesting. My thanks for the non-condescending way you explained it.