No it didn't. It's an unfounded notion that could have been posted as part of existing discussions, if you were wondering about it. It doesn't merit a thread with a lot of debate.
"As to the debate part, tell me why I am incorrect."
To be unconstitutional there would have to be some provision in the constitution that means they can't do it. There isn't. In fact it says the Senate has the "sole power to try impeachments", as you know. The Senate has the right to do that how they like.
You're using a comparison to judicial process to argue they can't, but that's not a constitutional argument. And it's wrong in any case. The criminal courts routinely have witnesses, including witnesses that didn't come up during an initial investigation. There's absolutely no rule of law saying there can't be a new witness in a criminal trial.
The correct comparison to use would be comparing impeachment by the House to a grand jury indictment, not to discovery. Discovery is part of the trial process. And if the Senate wanted to engage in discovery, they are empowered to do so.
I disagree. This is not a criminal case. The Senate can only judge the merits of what the House has put together in it's article of impeachment. If Bolton's "new" testimony or evidence is not currently part of the article of impeachment being currently considered, the House must call for Bolton to testify and then if they so choose, build another separate article of impeachment to present to the Senate.
This would be like asking a judge/jury to help the prosecution do it's job during a trial.