Well this is embarrassing as I have stayed in VB on a handful of occasions.
While I may or may not like to argue for arguement sake, it is also possible that the topic is important enough to argue about?
Is this factual?
https://www.history.com/news/elector...nal-convention
If so then it was not so much a system of fairness, but rather a compromise as there were no other ideas that seemed any better.
Well as expected any bible thumper can throw out the bible... and one could through out the Koran or even the Book of Mormon.
However the constitution is not suggested as being divinely inspired.
While it was written by committee it has a continuity of thought, so it differs that way as well.
The fact that Plato and Socratic principles have a direct link through Thomas Paine and other similar works... and that these works formed the Founding Fathers learned education in... can suggest that the constitution evolved from those.
I am not downplaying the constitution, just that we are 24 decades past it... We have more countries than just one that are following the general model.
And I see it more like a catalyst for society, whereas you seem to be suggesting it is a static thing... or an actual static document, rather than a documented framework of ideas and attributes upon which to form a nation... and something that is open to dynamic change.
(which also makes it different from the bible, if ignore the New Testament addition to the Old Testament... and later Koran, and later Book of Mormon.)
You can keep saying the democrats are trying to change the constitution and the republicans are trying to protect it... However you are still giving no examples.
Saying the same statement over and over is not providing evidence that what you are saying is factual.
If you want me to agree, then you have to give me a way to do that based upon something reasonable. Some examples were there no GOP changes would be ideal.
Either party can lobby for constitutional change, and the constitution has been changed in the past.
If you were to suggest that it is not wise to change it willy-nilly based upon short term public emotion... then I would agree with that.