I don't know how well it would "play", but I thing the case can be made that the Second Amendment is an exception. The phrase "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could be read as disqualifying any attempt at repeal. The amendment to repeal would be unconstitutional from the outset.
Yup! I always take the "incorporation" argument with a "grain of salt" because specifically the 4th and 2nd amendments say that no level of government can violate those, while the first does say, "Congress shall make no law...".
I don't know how well it would "play", but I thing the case can be made that the Second Amendment is an exception. The phrase "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could be read as disqualifying any attempt at repeal. The amendment to repeal would be unconstitutional from the outset.
While I'd like to believe in exceptions, I find it hard to agree. But, you got me to thinking and I'd even go so far as to say that the Article V prohibition regarding suffrage could be changed by ammendment; first to remove the equal suffrage limitation in regard to ammendments, and second to make whatever change in the senate which would result in non-equal suffrage. This is all on a legal level, rather than the spirit/original intent level.
raygun says
There is no spirit to the Constitution, it is a fallacy espoused by liberals that it is the spirit should be interpreted as oppossed to the letter of the law.
While I suppose I agree that there is no spirit to the Constitution, there is a philosophical underpinning (spirit or original intent) from which the Constitution was born. That spirit resided in the people and was reflected in the Constitution. The spirit in the people (in general) today is not the same as that which the founding generation possessed, which has been taken advantage of by politicians to grow governmental power and erode natural rights. Each generation will interpret the Constitution, or mold it, according to the spirit of the time.
So, there is some truth in what liberals would call the "spirit" of the Constitution, but the fallacy is in considering the new spirit as better than the original. They wrap the new spirit up in the word "progress." The original spirit, with great understanding and foresight, would view this as the natural progression of government, especially that of a government dominated by democracy.
Returning to FreeTally's original assertion that ammending the bill of rights is tantamount to a declaration of war, it depends on the spirit of the people. If there is enough original spirit remaining to mount a significant response to any such attempt, then it will be so. If not, then it will just be "progress."