Bill of Rights as an entrenched clause

[MaC]

No for two reasons.

1)It would guard the right to murder (2nd amendment) *shudder*

2)The Consitution should always have the ability to change it what is necessary for a certain day and age.  Who knows what might happen in the future and one amendment might not make sense anymore.

Yes, protecting freedom is a bad thing. 

[MaC]

the 'living' constitution is means for corruption upon which those who wish to change it can change it to their likings-at the very least the Bill of Rights should be preserved as they cover basic freedoms and negative rights better than the latter amendements do.

For example-yes, individuals in juries are always apt to have personal bias.  That doesn't mean one should not be given right to a trial.  It's like saying well, I didn't read enough of the book before the test, therefore I'd be better off not taking the test and getting a 0% on it.

[MaC]

Hmm, come to think of what you said, I have to disagree with the civil war amendments.  The 15th is fine.  The 13th needs more clarification on what slavery entails (ex. is the draft slavery?).  The fourteenth is too ambiguous and an abridgement of state's rights-I agree with some concepts, but the amendment should be shortened and less ambiguous.