The idea that a part of the government could be unchangeable even if 100% of the people in the country oppose it, seems not just dystopian but philosophically absurd.

As a compromise, though, how about having some rules about which laws the government is allowed to make, and requiring something like a two-thirds majority to be able to change those rules.

Then you could have a rule saying that the government can't make any laws that cause the people to not be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Actually you're right, maybe that won't be sufficient.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but the facts on the ground are that the constitution is broken all the time without anyone being punished enough to stop them from doing it again. Unless you outline penalties or protections such as qualified immunity for defending the constitution it becomes meaningless.