There is a mechanism to amend the constitution, which has been used numerous times over the years, as the country and culture have shifted. I think it's somewhat naive to think, especially in the current climate, that a rewriting of the constitution would do anything to serve the people.
If the amendment process is flexible enough to allow for throwing out the entire constitution and writing a new one, I feel like a more practical way to achieve drastic change would be to 1) write a new, idealized constitution, 2) diff it against the current one, 3) bucket the changes, 4) propose and ratify a series of amendments that gradually morph the constitution into what's desired.
Now, I don't expect that to happen either, but it seems more plausible. While it might be incredibly satisfying to throw everything out and start over, I'm not sure that's even wise, even ignoring the practical considerations.
Regardless, I think there's a lot of good in there that has held up really well over time, and we shouldn't be so quick to think we can do better. Some things have to go (like the overly-broad interstate commerce clause), and some things need to be added (like stronger rights to privacy), but I think we still have a solid base to work with.
Regardless^2, I don't even see the Equal Rights Amendment getting ratified (even ignoring its currently-expired state); anything larger seems too daunting. Our political client isn't amenable to any kind of constitutional amendments, and I expect that to be the case for many decades to come.
Regardless^3, the political machine seems to -- correctly -- believe that stacking the supreme court is the way to effect constitutional change nowadays, and they're unfortunately doing a good job of it so far.
The constitution should be hard to amend, its purpose is to give stability. That you disagree with parts of it is one thing, but remember that if it's easy to amend, there's no guaranteed it will be in a way you like.
On paper you are 100% correct that it is strictly speaking legally easier to amend this law; but in reality, clearing the majority necessary to amend our Constitution is politically a lower bar than getting 7/8 of the legislature to amend this particular law. We really do amend it regularly and most voters I talk to don’t put a whole lot of thought into whether it’s a constitutional amendment or a statute. If they’re for whatever it is, they’re for it, and if they’re against it, they’re against it. The mechanics matter to a minority of us.
If you read the amendment process, the states can get together and amend the constitution if pushed too hard by the Feds. It hasn't been done, but it is a valid avenue.
reply