To a large extent that is true. The Constitution's amendment process, along with the election process, give the people ultimate power to change the protection of rights offered by that document. But those two processes are filtered and somewhat complicated...it's not as if the Constitution is immediately malleable to the will of the people.
I think it was designed this way for a reason. The Founders understood that rights are important and that majorities can be just as dangerous as tyrants when it comes to rights.
Of course, it should be mentioned that the Constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes and protects them. The people could amend the Constitution to require death for professing Christian beliefs...that does not mean there is no right to religious expression.
Correct. But, again, to put this all into context, the Constitution was amended, not even 100 years ago, to ban the sale of alcohol. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen.
Of course given the current judiciary, the Constitution is not immediately malleable to the will of the people but it pretty immediately malleable in the hands of judges.
I think it was designed this way for a reason. The Founders understood that rights are important and that majorities can be just as dangerous as tyrants when it comes to rights.
Of course. But they were also men of moderation and I don't think they envisioned or would have expected the 1st Amendment to protect bestiality pornography, the 2nd Amendment to protect private ownership of nuclear weapons, the 4th Amendment to guarantee a right to abortion, and so on. The paradox of liberty is that if you don't use it responsibly, it becomes enough of a liability that people will give it up or take it away. The purpose of liberty is to leave nice people alone and let them lead good lives, not to let the freaks run wild and make life a living Hell for nice people. And those who abuse their liberty to do awful things are just as big of a threat to your liberty as any tyrant because they will make people veiw liberty as a liability rather than a gift.
Of course, it should be mentioned that the Constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes and protects them. The people could amend the Constitution to require death for professing Christian beliefs...that does not mean there is no right to religious expression.
True, but that leaves us back to the question others have asked. Who gets to decide what our rights really are? And there are really only two answers to that. Some sort of body that is unanswerable to The People get to decide or The People do. There is no magical force or army of perfect robots that will protect your rights. People have to do it. Either they are answerable to voters or they aren't, and neither way is a perfect guarantee of your rights.