My point was that the Constitution does not handle the current situation - not specifically that the authors thought of it or not.

OK, but why is there so much Constitution/Founding Father worship in America?

It's a flawed document that has lead to a flawed nation. It does not have Messiah-like abilities to deal with current problems so why be surprised it doesn't have modern solutions to modern problems.

But they did have the foresight to make it a document that could be edited. That part did take forethought and was revolutionary by men who were very much ahead of their time. I understand that judgement of figures of the past by modern ethics is the newest trend, but history has to be given a bit of context and what is a given now was blasphemous at the time. Some of the things, like a constitution that could evolve, was not the norm.

Every country that has a constitution has a mechanism to modify it, but the US Constitution is set up in a way that its most severe flaws can't be fixed (small rural states are over-represented but have a veto over any attempt to change this because 3/4 of the states must agree to any amendment).

It isn't a flaw. It is part of the strength of the system.

When a country that's only 70 years old goes into a civil war - that's not an indicator of a strong system.

A war which it recovered from and remains to this day the world's oldest federated state.

By subverting the US Constitution.

That's not a flaw, it's a very intentional choice that enables the US to be the federation of states that it is. Changing that would be to fundamentally change the form of government that the US has.

> Every country that has a constitution has a mechanism to modify it

Sure, NOW that's standard. At the time, it was not.

> the US Constitution is set up in a way that its most severe flaws can't be fixed

This isn't a flaw at all. It is meant to ensure the broad geographic consensus is required to make fundamental changes.

Reducing the political power of rural communities might be popular today among urban communities, but it is a recipe for escalating division and ultimately rebellion.

There is great value in giving out-sized political power to remote colonies and communities. Further centralizing power in the capitals is a path to fascism.

This last summer I read through the two Chernow bios for Washington and Hamilton. I came away from them with a renewed respect for their leadership through a difficult war and the daunting challenge of errecting a new government built on a system of checks and balances that protects individual rights. I'd say they were pretty darn successful.

We are lucky that they were able to pull it off. It really could have fallen apart. But it didn't. And for that they deserve an enormous amount of veneration.

It's an outstanding document all things considered. Aside from some things like implicitly allowing slavery at the time, the constitution + bill of rights are nearly perfect as a foundation for the role a federal government should play in my opinion, especially with some additions like the 14th. Nothing else that I've seen captures the essence of good governance quite the same.

Because people (on different sides of political divides, at different times) are happy to have any, arbitrary, damping coefficient on the pace of social change.

The ceremony of interpreting the document is all a bit silly, but it's better than letting they majority party write a new one.