Not sure if you're addressing me, RAH? If I step in here where I'm not supposed too, I apologize.
I am completely on board with the 2/3 majority change. That's my point...If the constitution was the absolute perfection that some believe it is, there would never exist a need to amend it in any form whatsoever. It would be perfect, right from the start.
But if we recognize that certain parts, ANY parts, need clarification or amending, then that casts a certain... doubt(?) on the entire manuscript in my eyes. Like other extremely controversial subject matter, it often comes down to opinion, interpretation, and a whole lot of faith. To invoke the founding fathers on a regular basis as a means to justify one's position relies on a certain interpretation of what they were hoping to convey, centuries ago.
Is our interpretation correct? No way to tell. We can extrapolate, analyze, compare.....but in the end, we're just guessing. And one guess is as good as another.
