No, but you also shouldn't worry too much about making the constitution timeless. It doesn't bind us, it binds our government. It would be a healthier process f

No, but you also shouldn't worry too much about making the constitution timeless. It doesn't bind us, it binds our government. It would be a healthier process for people to continually define the type of government they feels is appropriate to act for them than to accept some aged document as gospel. And especially because the government spends much time working around the constitution with things like Interstate Commerce which now is everything. If you hold the work sacred you can't consider fixing the revealed flaws. But yes, in practice it's almost always more practical to argue over the 2% rather than rewriting it all and rechartering the government.