> That the Constitution provides a process for amendment is proof that its framers intended for it to be amended. That they specifically laid out certain things

> That the Constitution provides a process for amendment is proof that its framers intended for it to be amended. That they specifically laid out certain things which could not be amended indicate that they intended for it to be possible to amend anything and everything else. That the amendment procedure was itself not included in the list of unamendable things includes it in the list of amendable things. Therefore the list of unamendable things is in the scope of amendments as something which may be amended This makes no sense to me but is pretty common thinking. It's crazy that we expect the original authors of the Constitution to have considered every possibility exhaustively. To put the idea in a different context, if I fail to blacklist a particular string in my webapp, does that mean I intended to let it through? Or could it be possible that, through negligence, a lack of research, or some other reason, that the string was omitted in error?