So the addition of the Bill of Rights was merely "regular maintenance?" How curious.Our amendment process was put into place for regular maintenance.
There were no limits placed on the scope of the amendment process. We are more than entitled to use it to modify the Constitution as we see fit -- including empowering another Constitutional Convention to completely rewrite and chuck the whole thing, if we so choose.
It's also not a particularly easy process; in fact, the bar to amend the Constitution is fairly high. Unlimited scope, hard to enact -- that sure doesn't sound like "regular maintenance" to me.
Oh, whatever....nor is the Constitution some sort of living document whose meaning and intent changes with the times. That's precisely what I mean by maintenance. We haven't kept up and now we rely upon nine robed justices to do the end runs around the Constitution.
There is no reason why contemporary Americans need to be yoked to the political beliefs of a bunch of dead, white, aristocratic politicians. We are under no obligation whatsoever to reject gay marriage just because they did, or to accept slavery because they did, or deny women the franchise because they did.
And of course, the people who wrote -- and equally importantly, ratified -- the Constitution did not see eye to eye on lots of issues. They almost immediately split on topics like whether to have a standing army and a central bank.
Oh, and they are no longer alive. Not only are we just getting someone's biased and self-serving interpretation of their opinions, they are not living in the same world as us, experiencing the societal changes we are, and they don't have to live with the consequences of our policies.
A Constitution that cannot be modified or reinterpreted is not freedom. It's a straightjacket. Pass.