That begs the question. How is a constitution adopted? Here, it was by super-majority. That is why I refer to super-majorities rather than simple majorities. The constitution was adopted unanimously a national convention and then ratified by all thirteen states; every subsequent amendment garnered 2/3 of each house of congress and then 3/4 of the state legislatures. That is a super-majority. Who sets the "rules of the game" if not the super-majority? If not, should it instead be, a minority? If so, which one? It is the super-majority that declared that all persons are subject to the equal protection of the laws. It was not a marauding murderous minority shoving it down the throats of a tainted super-majority. In theory, 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures could vote to have you and me shot at dawn tomorrow because we are ugly. But that does not happen simply because, believe it or not, the basic decency of the citizenry as a whole, reflected in its supermajority, does not allow that to happen. It is not because some "enlightened" self-appointed minority overrides efforts to make it happen.
The court system exist because the Constitution (enacted by super-majority) creates them. The sovereign We the People could change the way the court structure works by amendment to the constitution. That does not happen readily not because some mythic minority wills it so to override the sovereign We the People, but rather because the super-majority of We the People insist on having this court system. And, don't smugly make an idol out of the court system. Dred Scot, the Slaughterhouse cases, Plessy v Ferguson and Korematsu are all wonderful examples of the court system furthering an excess, not correcting one.
Constitutions do not descend from on high or from a particularly discrete minority. It remains the reality that our constitution reflects the decisions of a super-majority. That is the source of the constitution's legitimacy, as it is an enactment of We the People, who are sovereign. Since only super-majority (but many minorities) on any discrete yes or no question can exist and individuals are fluid and not robotic, anyone can try to win a super-majority to his or her side to change a prior super-majority decision. It may not be easy, but nobody died and empowered you to make it easy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question You surely did not mean that someone was committing a logical fallacy. You meant that "it raises the question". But by all means, repeat exactly the same thing you said two posts ago, even though I expressed absolutely no disagreement with it.
One actually could make a logical case that a "mythic minority" indeed adopted the Constitution -- and each of its amendments. That would be by comparing the numbers of people involved in each adoption as compared to the number of citizens who have lived since then, all of whom have been bound by the Constitution they had no part in adopting. This is a particularly logical case when one considers that Supreme Court Justices can be "strict constructionists" who say the Constitution means what, and only what, the adopters thought it meant. The logic is even greater when one considers that due to the very high bar for amending the Constitution, an actual minority can prevent its amendment. It's intriguing to me to consider that multiple generations have been bound by a Constitution that a very few white male landowners adopted a very long time ago and that the bar for changing that is almost prohibitively high. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's definitely weird.
Um...that is literally by design. Or rather it is the inverse consequence of the supermajority requirement. The design is that it is DIFFICULT to amend. The alternative is one degree or another of whim and/or momentary passions driving frequent change, potentially leading to a tyranny of the majority and the utter breakdown of protections for political/social minorities.