David Horowitz and other opponents of the FMA are very worried that such an amendment will erode the “sanctity” of the Constitution. I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Constitution and I’m still undecided, but leaning against, the FMA. But I fail to understand how changing the constitution through the intended process written down by the founders is somehow so much worse than the current process whereby a bunch of unelected judges just make stuff up as they go. Amending the constitution is a big deal, but it’s also very hard. Which is a very good thing for a host of reasons — some of which include the fact that the process teaches people to take the Constitution seriously. I always find it interesting that in a culture which constantly speaks of the need to “exercise” our individual rights, we find it horrific that we might exercise our collective rights in the long, deliberative and profoundly democratic and republican (small ds and rs) process laid out in the Constitution. I would much rather that sort of judicial activism than the sort we have now under our system of “living” constitutions.