“Well then I guess these amendments are ‘hubristic’ in your book?
1st - Congress shall make no law...
2nd - ...shall not be infringed.
4th - ...shall not be violated...”
You’re better than that. I don’t for a moment believe you don’t understand my argument, or wouldn’t if you stopped steamrolling through arguments. Declaring Congress shall make no law restricting this or that, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that the right to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures shall not be violated does not bring you into conflict with any other part of the Constitution. Declaring no amnedments can be made on a particular subject does bring you into conflict with the ability to pass amendments, as outlined in Article 5. If you can still pass amendments, you can pass an amendment to overturn the no amendments amendment.
Actually, the Bill of Rights is in logical conflict with the rest of the Constitution, which has it that the federal government can’t do what it hasn’t been empowered to do. Since Congress was never given the power to regulate speech, it doesn’t make any sense to deny them that power. Madison raised this particular objection when they were proposed. But practicality, in the form of quieting (perceptive) anti-federalists, and emotion, in the form of the Bill of Rights just feeling right, won out.
So, in a way, you’re right. They too are flawed. Not in the same way, though, and certainly not to the extent of, the Corwin amendment.
“i remember one of your buddies arguing Lincoln was not an abolitionist not long ago.”
I don’t know who that was, nor its context. Obviously, he wasn’t an abolitionist to begin with, and never was one in the John Brown sense. But what else can you call someone who issued the EP and pushed for the 13th amendment?