[venomsnake]

Thanks for the reply, but I think you slightly misunderstood what I was asking. It was not a criticism over the way judiciary are doing their work.

What I was wandering is why there is no scrutiny over the constitution itself - are parts of it relevant still, could they be bettered and so on. Quick checking of the years of the enactment of the various amendments shows that after the initial flurry of activity there is some calm period for the country to settle down - but then with the changing society various amendments are enacted and we have roughly one amendment every 5-10 years after WWI until the seventies.

And then suddenly that stops for 42 (so far) years. So in times of unprecedented technological and social change there is no perception that the document itself must change.

Is the text about well regulated militia needed for security still relevant when you have professional huge standing army ?

Do we need new constitutional right in the digital era and not have to rely on the pity of SCOTUS to extend the current we have?

So basically my question is why the constitution is considered sacrosanct and perfect, and not something with flaws and shortcomings that should be fixed?

[saraid216]

> we have roughly one amendment every 5-10 years after WWI until the seventies.

> And then suddenly that stops for 42 (so far) years.

I missed this earlier, but you've got your facts wrong. The last ratified amendment was the 27th in 1992, or 21 years ago. The 26th was 21 years before that in 1971.

> Is the text about well regulated militia needed for security still relevant when you have professional huge standing army ?

The Wikipedia page has a lovely summary of Judge Scalia (and originalist) contorting himself to pieces over it. It would be entertaining if it weren't law.

[rayiner]

What I'm saying is that the most obvious way to change the Constitution, judicial interpretation, is circumscribed by the considerations I mentioned.

Outside of that, you'd need a Constitutional convention or a series of amendments. But nobody wants to open that can of worms. You'd be as likely to see an amendment banning abortion as one guaranteeing privacy. The equal protection clause of the 14th would be on the chopping block. People would seriously propose repealing the 13th amendment.