Just catching up with your excellent dialogue.
One thing that keeps coming up in my thoughts:
The Left (and a lot of otherwise normal people) believe that the body of Supreme Court jurisprudence ADDS to the Constitution, as if this were a third, unwritten Article V process for amending the document. That these opinions, in toto, are Midrash or Mishnah to the Constitution's Torah.
The problem with this is the use of exclusive terms in the document itself, like "ALL Legislative powers herein granted".
The elaborate Article V processes for changing the Constitution would have been unnecessary if the authors (and, more importantly, the ratifiers) had intended a body that could change it through simple majority voting based on "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" or "the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life", or some other such nonsense.
The point, of course, is that most would wish to remain blind to the fact that the Republic is overthrown, and that most of our conversations about our Liberties are meaningless in light of this fact.
I think the founders would throw a fit, or maybe another revolution, if they saw headlines proclaiming that the Supreme Court had ‘legalized” this or that or the other thing, when they quite emphatically ceded no such authority to the judiciary.
And that’s just the process side of things.
If they saw the abominable, immoral, daily slaughter of little babies, or sodomites pretending to be “married,” they would become warlike quite quickly, I think.
And they would be devastated that their posterity could have turned out to be so wicked and stupid.