And I specifically dismiss the idea that the Constitution governs the people. It is the document by which the people (attempted to) govern the Feds. And it provides a mechanism by which the people (including those who are generations removed) can change those laws under which the Feds operate, as well as a way to impose the changes without needing Federal cooperation. Whether the people have adequately enforced their authority, or made appropriate updates to that law, are entirely separate questions, and certainly subject to vigorous debate.

At the very least I presume you'd acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution lists crimes including treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. I can't think of a more canonical way to "govern the people" than a state actor specifying criminal sanctions that can include the punishment of death...

Yes, it lists them, but not in the context of defining crimes or punishments. It is granting to the new government the authority to define, determine the punishment for, and prosecute those crimes. In other words the document does not "govern the people", it, as part of defining the new government, grants it (limited) power to govern the people. But still subject to the future whims of the people. Get enough people to agree, and you can remove the authority to punish treason.

Oh, I will acknowledge that the 18th had no business being in the Constitution. Thankfully, that mistake was corrected.

The article is an interesting if impractical thought experiment.

Nations are more than the sum of their citizen parts. They live beyond the scope of any one human. Thousands if not millions are born and die every day. Law is more long lived by necessity.

Framework documents like the constitution are gifts from our ancestors -- any system sting enough to endure and flexible enough to change is a good thing. If the 20th century taught anything, it's that nation building is exceptionally difficult. The US constitution has been the core framework for a robust nation for centuries.