"-- You will have declared that two thirds of a quorum of each House of the Congress, plus a majority of a quorum of each of the two Houses of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, may enact any legislation they please without any reference to the limitations of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights itself. --"
That is a fact, all right. It is also what Article V has provided since the Constitution was ratified, nothing new.
What was Root's complaint again? I took it to be the quorum business, since Root mentioned it and Article V does not contain the word, but discovered that the Bill of Rights was also ratified by quorums. The only thing left is the pretense that an amendment cannot be repealed. Neither you nor your quotations from Root have supported that novel claim. Do you have anything else?
"-- You will have declared that two thirds of a quorum of each House of the Congress, plus a majority of a quorum of each of the two Houses of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, may enact any legislation they please without any reference to the limitations of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights itself. --"
That is a fact, all right. It is also what Article V has provided since the Constitution was ratified, nothing new.
Yep it is 'nothing new' that certain factions want the power to ignore our bill of rights. We can only wonder why.
What was Root's complaint again?
Root asked, in effect, -- why would you want to give majorities a power to 'override' unalienable rights, among them the right to bear arms?
I took it to be the quorum business, since Root mentioned it and Article V does not contain the word, but discovered that the Bill of Rights was also ratified by quorums. The only thing left is the pretense that an amendment cannot be repealed.
Our unalienable rights cannot be 'repealed' away. Your pretense that they can is a sheer denial, as securing the "Blessings of Liberty" was one of the founding principles of our Constitution.
Neither you nor your quotations from Root have supported that novel claim. Do you have anything else?
Holding that rights outlined in the first ten amendments are unalienable is hardly a "novel claim".
But feel free to keep pretending that it is so.