I'm 3/5 in agreement with you. Without pretending to be able to do better, it has some massive gaps, such as its reliance on respect for norms, its utter failure to allow for demographic or technological evolution, its ambiguity on key concepts like muh gunz, and its comparatively sclerotic nature.
And yes, 3/5 - well played.
Not in complete agreement, but I understand the frustrations. There are definitely some needed updates, but ambiguity isn't bad at the federal level in some instances.
Ambiguity only goes so far, and sometimes it is inevitable. Take the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law..." - absolutely crystal clear. And yet, the US does not have freedom of speech, e.g. even Brandenburg v. Ohio places limits on expression, and the existence of "free speech zones". \1
...and we won't even get into what SCOTUS have upheld in terms of religion (or do court decisions not count as "Congress shall make no law"? Then, 2A. Ambiguous, just because of that fucking comma, and because nobody saw AR-15s coming, and how many school shootings is that this year? \2
...and then there's that pesky slavery thing. <3 13A, but whoa Nelly, what's that "...except [...]" bit in there? Is that forced prison labour I see on yonder highway shoulder? So I guess we could revert to strict interpretationalism, except that kind of puts the kibosh on pretty most... \3
...socioeconomic or political innovations of the last >200 years, and don't get me started on things like war powers, and what to do if a minority of voters and their elected representatives suddenly decide that treason and grift and raping little girls are just peachy keen \4
...I'll readily agree that it was a revolutionary (literally) and incredibly influential document for its time - hell, even my own country's first constitution cribbed from it. But note "first" - because that was in 1848 and we've had 3 so far. Because the world changes, and we should adapt. \5
...but no, I think it's horribly outdated, insufficient, inflexible, and not fit for purpose. Just my 2c - the US has a clear choice. Either confront some pretty sticky questions, like the limits of speech in the age of social media and FIMI, head-on, or simply cease to exist in the coming years.
...lock and load, let's have it. :) (And lest you think I'm gonna be all Eurocommie snotty-superior, I'll be happy to pontificate on the hilarious structural political failings of both where I'm from and where I live, if you've got a few hours and a high tolerance for invective.)
All good stuff but I'd argue not horribly outdated, just requires some deliberate changes because it's not the 18th century. The core of it is still very valid and good.
This is why we have things like the universal declaration of the rights of man, which I fully support as a set of core principles. I also agree with the concept of a constitution laying out the basic structure of government. But I won't concede that it's been utterly useless in terms of \1
...allowing timely updates. E.g. the disproportionate level of representation of rural states compared to powerhouses (which is utterly undemocratic), or the demonstrated lack of recourse when confronted with an actual honest-to-god coup, because, well, *waves hands vaguely*