GRX, I really shouldn’t have to puzzle out your arguments or alignments from your posts- being forthright from the beginning could have saved us a lot of time. Ayn Rand has, um, a pretty bad reputation in a bunch of circles, for a bunch of reasons. I would strongly encourage you to read some criticisms of her work and Objectivism as a whole before you go quoting her. Rand’s fictional novels, particularly, have a nasty rep as being designed specifically to ensnare people who don’t understand the context of their views, by creating worlds specifically around making the arguments of Objectivism seem valid. Similarly, Anthem is criticized, because in it Rand describes her views as a fully original system, something they certainly are not. Rand’s views are also not something that you would necessarily find agreed to in Libertarian circles; even there, Objectivism is considered pretty extreme.

These aren’t systemic, but a couple internal inconsistencies in your own post above:

It seems strange and self-contradictory to suggest that a ratification of an Amendment, or any other process, can be illegal. Even if this were the case, illegality is insufficiently strong as a reason for denial-such an action should be established as amoral, unethical or even immoral before you can act as if it’s bad. Otherwise, your reasoning at least appears to be circular.

In regard to quotes on freedom or rights, you are going to need to define both concepts in regard to how you use them. Otherwise, they’re little more than rhetorical hammers.

It seems like you’re using a heavily Kantian system here, but I’m not sure, because Rand wasn’t quite Kantian in her views, either. I fear we aren’t going to communicate very well, because I’m more of a Pragmatist or a Consequentialist in my views. For me, reducing suffering or raising unemployment are more important than preserving fiscal rights. Regardless, I am interested in understanding just where you’re coming from.