That's absurd. The Bill of Rights is literally a list of changes to the constitution. Any one of them can be changed at any time by a majority of states.
You're essentially saying that if the majority of the country votes to change one of the rights, then what? You'll no longer recognize the government as real?
Take that argument to an extreme. If the majority of the country votes to suspend democracy, would you stick around? If not, then doesn't that imply that there exists a set of underlying principles that you believe are fundamental to a government? That's exactly what the Bill of Rights is, an enumeration of what were viewed as the fundamental rights for which the point of government is to preserve.
The mistake so many people make is thinking that government is the lowest level. It is not, government is downstream of culture and is a reflection of that cultures values. Without a unified culture that agrees on certain prerequisits of government, for example from this case elected representation, there can be no functional government.
That's absurd. The Bill of Rights is literally a list of changes to the constitution.
Which were the price the Antifederalists demanded to accept the Constitution as a whole.
Any one of them can be changed at any time by a majority of states.
Supermajority, and only after a supermajority of the Congress starts the process or a supermajority of states calls for a constitutional convention. Even then, abrogating any of the Bill of Rights also abrogates the original deal, making the rest of the Constitution and its additional amendments null and void.
Can you justify or defend your argument in your last sentence? Because I think it's not only wrong, but clearly wrong.
In particular, other amendments have changed part of the text of the original Constitution. How does that not also "abrogate the original deal, making the Constitution null and void"? That argument should apply even more if we're talking about the body rather than the first 10 amendments, shouldn't it? Why do you single out the Bill of Rights as being unchangeable?
I can fathom why it's called the Bill of Rights. Yes, you made a claim. I'm asking you to substantiate your claim. Dismissive snark about what I'm able to fathom is not the same thing.
I also made an argument in my previous post. You completely ignored it. Would you answer it?
You're essentially saying that if the majority of the country votes to change one of the rights, then what? You'll no longer recognize the government as real?