Except that none of the first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) can be "deleted". In order to protect the minority from the majority, the founding fathers made sure of that.
Incorrect. The only part of the original Constitution that was written to be unchangeable was the delay before laws could be passed against the importation of slaves. 20 years, if I remember correctly.
The idea was kicked around again in several amendments that were proposed to appease the Slave Power in 1860, but never got anywhere.
You can make a moral case that the Bill of Rights is irremoveable because they are just enumerations of our "unalienable rights" we received from God, but you can't make a case that the Constitution itself prevents any change whatsoever, as long as you go through the unbelievably arduous amendment process. This process ensures that no amendment can be passed without almost unanimous support by the people. Which works for me.
What part of the Constitution says that?
If an amendment were legitimately ratified that in clear and unambiguous terms gave the President the authority to seize anyone's property he wanted for any reason and without compensation, the President would have that authority. That having been said, I can't imagine 38 state legislatures ratifying such a thing.
Given that 38 states already allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons for self-defense, I'm rather curious why the Tribune would expect 26 of those states to ratify an amendment to disarm their citizens. If HCI et al. want to introduce such an amendment, let them go ahead. I'd rather have them trying to amend the Constitution de jure than have judges modify it de facto.