When the delegates at the Second Continental Congress agreed unanimously to sign the Declaration of Independence they knew the people had a right and a duty to alter or abolish any government if that government becomes tyrannical. They knew that when central governments were unrestrained they would become more and more powerful and would eventually threaten the lives, liberty and property of the very people they were created to protect. They knew that it would be the responsibility of the states to prevent the tyranny that would result from the abuse of power by the central government.
Eleven years later, a convention was held in Philadelphia where delegates from 12 of the states met to create a new government with a new Constitution.They knew that their document was not perfect and that it would need to be amended from time to time.
They vested the power to propose amendments to members of Congress and to the states. They knew that if the central government had a monopoly on amendments, the states would be unable to protect the people from their abuse.
Many of the delegates who attended the Third Continental Congress wanted a stronger central government, but others feared that the new Constitution would give too much power to central government. They knew that in order to limit the potential abuse of power, the states would need to retain parallel authority to propose amendments to the Constitution.
They knew allowing the members of Congress to have a monopoly on the amendment process would render the states powerless to protect the rights of the people. The states created the central government and enjoyed an employer-employee relationship with the government that they had just created.
They believed that without the checks and balances provided for in Article V, Congress would have virtually unlimited power. If you wanted a strong central government with the power to control the lives, liberty and property of the people, giving Congress a monopoly on the amendment process would be a good idea. If on the other hand you believe that the role of government is to protect the rights of the people, allowing Congress to have the exclusive right to propose amendments would be a very bad idea.
Replies
The founders did not wish to place all power in a strong Central Government, as it would lead to corruption and tyranny. If they hadn't stepped in and created certain enumerated Rights to the States or Rights to the People in the bill of Rights, and to insure those rights they created the 9th and 10th amendments to assure these rights as reserved to the States or to the people. If they hadn't, the Union would end up exactly in the same position they had justly revolted against and they also knew that kind of Government would lead right back to what they had just driven out of this newly formed Government. The 9th and 10th amendments acted as one of the steps in the checks and balances in the system they had laid out as the basis of the Constitution.
It is our duty to protect and defend those rights as the Constitution can't defend it's self, we have to do that for our selves. The enemies of freedom await for us to drop our guard and then our freedom falls before our enemies. And once it's lost, it's incredibly hard to restore it. The term domestic enemies means exactly that.
And you can see them clearly in the news, in elected offices because we let them in, and/or because we have slowly dropped our guard and they are hidden in bureaucratic agencies operated under unconstitutional"administrative law". These enemies are particularly hard to out once they are up and running the ship of State. With the current captain at the helm, this ship is adrift right now, and fast approaching uncharted waters, and therein lies awaiting, a challenge to the freedom's we have allowed to slip away. Are we as a people, willing to repay the price our founders paid for with their lives and sacred honor to obtain a solid and lasting peace and safety, and if not ,then this ship will sink, and we are taking on a lot of water right now and down hard on the port side bow...
Again there is a need to set the record straight as to the actual events that lead up to the demonstrably fraud that was perpetrated in Philadelphia in 1787 that became known as the first Constitutional Convention. The framers of a working federation had that working federation working so as to pen the Declaration of Independence, and so as to help form the Republics, or States, that were voluntarily joined into that working Federation. It was that working Federation that worked to defend the people from the invasion by the criminal who called themselves the British Monarchy. So why did someone feel the need to get rid of the working federation and put in place of the working federation a Consolidated Monarchy instead of a working Federation?