I don't buy it. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was built to be amended should change be necessary. More importantly, it is clear that the Bill of Rights is, to some degree, a cobbled together response to the specific grievances the colonies suffered from dear old England, rather than some platonic listing of the rights of man. (I'm looking right at the 3rd amendment here. It doesn't seem like it belongs in the company of say, the first and the fourth.) My point is that not all of the points in the Bill of Rights were created equal, so ascribing equal importance to all of them seems misguided.
The history of the Bill of Rights is pretty interesting and complicated, but at its heart, it is a listing of what was believed was needed to keep a people free from government oppression. It was not designed to be amended by reduction. I believe (and it seems to go with SC rulings) that attempts to limit any of them weaken the rest by erosion. The third amendment might seem to have lost some of its importance because it unthinkable today, but it provides a very important restriction on government. Weakening one allows the weakening of all.
