If the Founders had wanted to entrench any part against amendment, they could have said, for instance, "The process outlined in Article V shall be the sole means of amendment of this constitution, and no amendment shall in any manner affect the text of Article V." By including this *in* article V, there would be no way to get it out. But it's not done that way. Sure, this isn't going to happen, I don't dispute. But law is about what's written, not about what we wish were written, right?
You really think they intentionally left that out so that the allocation of Senators could be changed by a 2 step process that would have the same number of votes as the one step process?
It's not in there because it's implicit.
As a purely theoretical exercise, there's a path there, yes.
I'd point you to
Federalist 85. Hamilton readily admits that the Constitution is imperfect and built on a series of unsatisfying compromises. He suggests that the sum of the Constitution is more than its parts and that after being adopted and on reflection amendments which change the fundamentals might be necessary. I don't think the Founders ever considered any part of the Constitution to be wholly sacrosanct and unchangeable; the Senate itself was an unhappy compromise for the benefit of the smaller states. Nothing implicit about it.
