I said "I derived", not "I believe the exact same thing."
You know exactly what I meant.
B) It isn't really what they wanted as the most important thing, it's the concept of the rule of law and not the rule of man.
Sure laws are made by men but if they are reasonable and universally agreed upon.
We have a good starting point.
C) That's unfortunate for them, they should of tried to included that as a statute in the document.
D) Again, that's unfortunate but that is the law.
I'm sure if it were really important you could get enough people to change it.
It was made difficult on purpose, to act as a guard against ambitious men attempting to gain more unjust power.
I personally like it that way.
It's my guard against the wants and whims of "the people."
That's not how law is supposed to work.
While you disagree, people like you are trying to force me to live within your society of positive rights.
I'm not asking for that, I'm asking to keep the original society of negative rights.
They were used to give people a clearer understanding of what the Constitution meant from the mouths of the framers.
It definitely has it's place.
My bias is similar to those who wrote the original document.
I believe in negative rights, the principals of the enlightenment and liberalism.
The ERA was never passed, so yes they can keep females from becoming president.
Laws are fixed until changed.
The amendment process is in The Constitution for making changes.
Now I probably won't agree with your amendments but I don't need to pull up the founders for that, it's unnecessary.
I'd debate you based on their utility.
Honestly I'd rather debate amendments, than go through the discussion we're having now.
I think this whole debate revolves around, The rule of law vs. The rule of man.