

       I'll point out that the whole point of the difficult amendment
process was to require a super-majority to change the Supreme Law,
making it impossible for a "majority" of the people to simply change
the law on a whim.  Simply changing the meaning based on "the
representatives" of the people effectively destroys the amendment
process.  The State's, you know, are also entitled to a say under
that process.
 

       I'll note that that right could be considered protected under
the first amendment's protection of peaceful assembly.  Unless
you would consider a militia inherently non-peaceful, then they've
stated the same thing twice.
