In a similar way, some insist that if the Constitution was good enough for Madison, Jefferson, and the rest of the founders and states, well it is good enough now and does not need changed by amendments.
Of course, the Holy Bible is inspired by God, but even those translations from the original languages by man can have errors and do. And also the Constitution, though well thought out, was written by men with faults, things learned by experience, and time can make amendments desirable or necessary. The founders knew well the philosophy, actions, and results of previous civilizations. They also knew this:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
The founders added the capability to make amendments to the Constitution to adjust for an ever maneuvering evil desire for some to rule over man, to become tyrants. Because of possible tyranny, changing times, and technology, etc. make it necessary to be able to adjust to survive.
Again, some insist that it not change, that it was good enough at the beginning, and is good enough now. Let's examine that statement as it denies the viability and importance of Article V and especially amendments done by the states.
Here is a time line of just four events in those formative years.
The Federalist No. 43 was written by Madison
As Mark Levin states, directly quoting from Madison:
After more research and reflection, the issue crystallized further. If the Framers were alarmed that states calling for a Convention for proposing Amendments could undo the entire undertaking of the Constitutional Convention, then why did they craft, adopt, and endorse the language? In Federalist 43, Madison considered both Article V amendment processes equally prudent and judicious. He wrote, in part, “That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other. . . . ”27
So now we know that on January 23, 1788 Article V had already been composed, inserted into the draft of the Constitution, and its defense by Madison in Federalist No. 43 written. Then, five months later (plenty of time for all to consider it), The Constitution had been ratified by nine of the thirteen states and became the law of the land.
June 21, 1788
Having been ratified by nine of the thirteen states, the Constitution is officially established
That ratification established the Constitution, the original Constitution as formed by the founders.
Next, the following year, fifteen months later, the first twelve amendments were proposed and sent to the states for ratification.
September 25, 1789
Twelve Constitutional Amendments Proposed By Congress
December 15, 1791, Articles Three through Twelve were ratified as additions to the Constitution and are collectively known as the Bill of Rights.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_drafting_and_ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution#1789
From the time of the original Constitution to the ratification of the Bill of Rights, (all ten amendments) was three years and five months. That is enough time to get a full college degree. These ten amendments were ratified because experience and weaknesses in the original Constitution made the changes needful and advisable. The original Constitution was NOT good enough even as early as December 15, 1791. Other amendments have been done since.
Sure, a few amendments ratified during a progressive popularity period were done in haste and should have not occurred. But one has been repealed and others could be if the current Article V movement succeeds. The test on amendments should be this: Do they limit the federal government as the Constitution was designed, or do they limit the states and/or the people? If it is the latter, the amendment proposed or ratified does not meet the criteria used by the founders.
The opposition to the Article V movement by the states to amend stands in the way of repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments. These both fail the criteria mentioned. One has to presume that the opposition to Amendment V Conventions to Amend, does not want these amendments repealed since we can be certain that the Federal government will never initiate the repeal of them. Thus the opposition seals our fate to live with these two bad amendments for the life of the republic.
And finally, the opposition to the Article V movement by the states to amend continually insists “the original Constitution is good enough, do not alter it”. But the original Constitution does NOT contain the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments. So the opposition must surely not want these amendments, including the first, second, and tenth. And yet, they also continually cry for the Federal government to obey these Bill of Rights, and especially that tenth amendment.
They want the original Constitution, without the Bill of Rights, but with the Bill of Rights. Can the opposition make up their minds?
Yet all the while, they deny they use of the ultimate States Rights feature of the Original Constitution, placed in it and ratified with the Constitution long before the Bill of Rights. And that is Article V. With Article V amendments, the states can right a Federal government gone awry further restricting a potential tyranny.
Digging further reveals that some of the opposition believes that the Constitution was illegally ratified. Yes, the conclusion is that some want to return to the Articles of Confederation.
One such discussion can be found here, where to objective is to invalidate the Article V Convention Amendments by claiming they would “run away” just as the Constitutional Convention of 1787 “ran away”. It is a rather convoluted argument.
'But the 1787 convention was clearly a “runaway convention”' http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18338-is-a-runaway-article-v-convention-a-myth-1787-proves-otherwise
The consequence is that perhaps amendments could be “un-ratified”, and perhaps the entire Constitution as well by as little as just one of the original thirteen states. And alternatively, make secession a reality thus achieving the prior condition of the Articles of Confederation, which amounted to a treaty between thirteen colonies acting as separate countries. The results now, as then, would be disastrous in a world were power dictates who survives. America would not have survived against the world powers with those weaknesses as found in that primitive governmental structure. I believe the Constitution was a gift from God, and a solid reason why we have survived and prospered.
Arguments to contrary supporting the legality of both the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and Article V Conventions to Amend abound. The subject has been brought forward in debates with these groups as well. Here are some to examine:
The Master Plan
Limited, Unlimited, or Runaway Convention
Anger and Fighting the Result of Lost Constitutionalism
What the Nullifiers Aren’t Telling You
Dr. Rob Natelson - "Runaway Convention"? – 5:19
Can We Trust the Constitution?
Answering The "Runaway Convention" Myth
Answers to Questions Posed by the John Birch Society>
Is “Nullification” the Answer?
Revolutionists, Not Constitutionalists
One has to ask, which side are the opposition to the Constitution really on, do they know it, and when did they know it? For them, the Constitution is apparently not good enough and amendments will make it worse.