Even funnier, both of these viewpoints are losers. The Constitution is so difficult to amend that many of the most dramatic developments were simply the supreme Court deciding that some part of it should actually mean something else.

For example, it states that the federal government has authority over, specifically, inter-state commerce. This was never changed or amended. The reason the federal government has authority over ALL commerce now is because the supreme Court simply decided that all commerce has inter-state ramifications, and thus is basically inter-state commerce.

These fuckers can literally just say the constitution says whatever they want and they've done that so much over the last 240 or so years that one cannot read it and understand what the law actually is. Certain parts simply don't apply anymore, or mean something different, or are said to "imply" other parts that don't technically exist, but the supreme Court said they basically do. The legislature can technically amend the Constitution, but that's a bitch to do. And what the fuck does it matter when these 9 people, more than half of them very bribable, get to say the document means whatever they feel like it means, even if their reasoning is "the constitution is very correct and smart, so obviously it says things that are correct and smart. The correct and smart thing would be for it to include this policy, so it probably does."

Not only that many of the founders outright said that it should be completely replaced one a generation, Thomas Jefferson famously said

"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living'; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it... On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law... Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."