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?
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.