I appreciate your point of view, I'm simply saying — correct as you may be about the purist constitutional interpretations of 1875 — that people on the right always do this ...disappear down rabbit holes and take stances that can be as right as they want, they simply will not win.

If you cannot win, you cannot make changes. The left understands this. The right do not. Even when the right do win, they are too polite (or compromised) to actual do anything about the decades of corruption and decline.

To this point:

"Still, the most disturbing aspect of your entire argument is that it is consistent with all of the liberal law professors and judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution can be amended through opinion and practice"

On the contrary. This is not my position.

I would like to have a constitutionalist Paul / Massey style candidate, but we do not have one.

So I am simply unsure what is the value of debating around in circles about these kinds of procedural matters ...when the ball is in play. I'm sure that even is you disagree with me, you can understand what I'm saying. There is little value in shouting from outside the tent that the tent is built incorrectly. You have to get inside the tent, and then start to dismantle the parts that are out of order, and put them back properly. That is my view.

Out of interest, who would you vote for, if you were voting in Iowa today?