> what good reason is there to believe that a constitution conceived over 200 years ago (when the US had roughly 1% the people, ~1/3 the land, legal slavery, an early-industrial / agrarian economy, etc., etc., etc.) is useful today?

What good reason is there to believe a politician today could do better? Or are you simply trying to use slavery as a cudgel to get people to not argue with you? Politicians today are a ruling class that are worth hundreds times more than the average citizen, receive better benefits like healthcare, can use privileged information for financial gain, are often large land owners, etc. Nothing has changed - at all. If anything, it's probably gotten worse at scale.

> Even if we agree that "free speech" and "free association" are reasonable universal rights (and I think we do), what these concepts mean in practice must necessarily evolve as technology gives us new ways of speaking and associating - and we will _always_ have to deal with the difficult question of what to do when someone, through exercising these rights, deprives others (intentionally or unintentionally) of the ability to exercise theirs. This balance necessarily changes as our methods of exercising free speech and association change.

Political interpretation by the lunatics in a post-mcarthy world are the reason that people think the bill of rights should be flexible. "But the founding fathers never talked about the internet!" is a very pathetic excuse from a very pathetic ruling class that currently controls this country. Any violation of the freedom of speech no matter the medium is a deprivation of rights. We have chosen to interpret it differently. Once you start opening this can of worms up you get all sorts of problems with what is intentionality, what is association, does "free speech" include things I don't like, etc. Right now there are plenty of politicians on every side of the spectrum who'd love to ban everything they don't like.

What I guess I am saying is people are the problem. Greedy, slimy, humans. The world is no more complex at it's core than it was 200 odd years ago. We have made it complicated by spending time finding gotchas instead of treating the constitution as a series of unquestionable meta-laws. Fix the politicians. The document is fine. To use your analogy, allowing simple amendments would be like changing the entire PR review process because a handful of malicious engineers refuse to ever follow the rules. Just fire the engineers!

> Extended the definition of "time of war" to include a war in which the state is not a participant. This was to allow the Government to exercise emergency powers during the Second World War, in which the state was neutral.

Seems like Ireland lasted 2 years before (in practice) removing all constitutional limits on government power forever. Oh sure, it's only "if so resolved by both Houses of the Oireachtas" but that's slim comfort to me.

> Meanwhile, Ireland manages to amend its constitution regularly [1] without exploding.

Ireland has population of ~5 million or about the same as Alabama. It isn't the best example.

Instead of a general critique could you instead offer a specific general improvement?

I don't think it's fair that you were downvoted, at least without that person elaborating on why.

I would tend to agree that larger, more pluralistic societies may have a larger downside to the ability to rapidly changing their laws. As one group gets within power, they have the ability to make lots of changes, only to be upset by the next group that ascends to power. The U.S. has a history of voting out the current party in power and that constant whipsawing of policy might be a recipe for instability.

> The U.S. has a history of voting out the current party in power and that constant whipsawing of policy might be a recipe for instability.

That's largely a US two-party thing. Elsewhere, there's not as much a singular "party in power", and they all need to compromise and tamper their more radical agendas to gain the votes needed.

I don't know if I'd say there's a 'singular party in power' in the US either. It seems pretty common to have, for example, the White House governed by one party and the House by another.

I wonder, too, if it's part of the primary voting process.

We did away with the people in smoke-filled rooms selecting candidates, which seems great. But it also creates more polarized candidates which seems to constantly alienate voters.

> I don't know if I'd say there's a 'singular party in power' in the US either. It seems pretty common to have, for example, the White House governed by one party and the House by another.

For each electable organization, in a two-party system, one of the parties is always in power. The different organizations in the US government (president/senate/house) are more like stages of decisionmaking with intricate interplay. They can be ruled by different parties, but any change of power within one of those organizations is always a full flip-flop within that "stage".

Contrast that to a multi-party system, where such an organization might have power split in ratios like 6:5:3:2. The party with representation of 6 still needs to cooperate with at least two of the others. Even if they lose votes and the 6:5 flips to 4:7, cooperating with the other parties tempers the rule of the new rising party, 4+3 is 7 and all that.

This means the system is much more likely to evolve into the parties making deals with each other and compromising, as opposed to the flip-flop between opinions A and B.