CAN THE CONSTITUTION BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
YES, actually there is in fact such a thing as the constitutionality of the Constitution.
The constitution is not just a self-validating document, which would ultimately make it a tool of unbridled tyranny (even as we see illegitimately being exercised today). Rather the Constitution is a document licensing government, and dictating the terms of that government, and doing so by a certain and unalterable philosophy.
It is because of the undeniable and immutable nature of this philosophy that we are able to recognize documents such as the Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance as the Organic Law of this country, its founding principle, rather than just recognizing this country's "principle" as whatever it might be at the current point in time.
Among the foundational principles and philosophies of the Constitution are these immutable principles:
1) The Constitution is based on unalienable individual rights, with these rights not being provided by the Constitution itself, nor grants from the federal nor state governments, but only recognized in the Constitution, solely a "listing of particulars", even as affirmed by the 9th Amendment and the reference to other rights beyond those specifically enumerated. These rights are specifically recognized to prohibit the federal government itself acting to alter, interfere, or deny these rights in any fashion. Given this, by the terms of the Constitution itself, these rights are not any sort of "demand license" to be used against private citizens, or private organizations.
2) The Constitution does not dictate the terms of society, nor dictate how people might or shall live their lives, much less give federal government any authority to write statutes involving these details, as the only legitimate soil over which the Congress and federal government may legislate is a 10x10 mile square area known today as the District of Columbia; forts, arsenals, designated federal lands, and territories which are prospective states.
3) The Constitution only constitutes the fiction that is the federal government itself, by a positive detail and enumeration of its legitimate authority, and by the negative specific listing of those powers that no longer are to remain with the various states, as well as establishing the authority the federal government has with foreign nations.
4) The Constitution is founded on unalterable State sovereignty, even as recognized by the Supreme Court itself, with the federal government only being a proxy for the collective State sovereignty when the individual States themselves cannot reasonably each exercise that sovereign authority independently.
ANY and ALL violations of these terms represent violations of the Constitutional principle, and when incorporated into the Constitution, the corrupted and failed constitutionality of the Constitution itself.
► As such, the 18th Amendment and the Prohibition of the consumption of alcohol is inherently unconstitutional having violated #1, #2, and #4.
► As such, the 14th Amendment is inherently unconstitutional, given that it puts the federal in the position of policing rights in the sovereign states, and by this selective policing, in the position of fabricating rights and denial of real, with this violating principle #1, #2, #3 and #4.
► As such, the 17th Amendment establishing the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote, is of highly questionable constitutionality, as it reduces the unalterable sovereignty of the States themselves, and does so in an area where the State governments can, and have, legitimately exercised their independent authority and influence, with this being in conflict with principle #1, #3, and #4.
► As such, any hypothetical amendment intending to alter or abolish any of the Bill of Rights, inclusive of the 2nd Amendment, even if successfully being added to the Constitution by processes detailed in Article V thereof, would be flagrantly and undeniably unconstitutional, given #1, #2, #3, and #4.
In fact these means of introducing unconstitutionality into the Constitution, are invariably attempts to alter our form and principle of government, by surreptitious means, often under the cover of some societal benefice, but which itself is in conflict with the principles of the Constitution, and history has shown results in the gross illegitimate expansion of federal authority, even beyond what might have the quasi-legitimate limited terms originally intended. This is seen particularly and conspicuously with the 14th Amendment itself, originally only intended to ensure blacks the equal rights, privileges and immunities to which they were entitled by the Constitution, as every other citizen, but then fabricating the fallacy of "birthright citizenship" 30 years afterwards from a distortion of "jurisdiction", creating anchor babies by judicial fiat. There is not legitimately any such "birthright citizenship" resulting from mere birth on U.S. soil, which obviates the federal government's constitutional obligation to the two-way contract of allegiance, which is integral to citizenship itself.