The Constitution has built-in methods of change, so by definition it is not sacrosanct despite being a great piece of work.
Actually, it is. Especially because of the built in method of change. What is sacrosanct is foundation of thought that created those documents. It is the culmination of 800 years of struggle for freedom and the very solid thought and philosophy that went before it and went into it. The founders did not come up with these documents off the top of their heads, it was a zenith of brilliant men and women throughout history that have contributed to the idea of personal freedom and self determination.
You can change the document all you want, but changes that digress from this centuries old struggle as well as the political historical constants evident in every previous system in every age, is a path to the very tyranny that it is designed to protect us from.
There's plenty in the constitution that is unclear and up for interpretation. It's up to us to interpret it in the way that best benefits the country. So no, I don't believe the constitution is sacrosanct.
If you think there is anything unclear about the constitution, I would suggest you are woefully ignorant of the men that created it and the 800 years of wisdom they drew from. If you stop only at reading the founding documents and know nothing of what led to them, then I suppose it would seem unclear on some points. In reality, it's not unclear at all. The only thing that was unclear when they were written was whether future generations would remain cognoscente of the history of tyranny and if they would retain the goal of righting the issues left unaddressed and close forever the loopholes to tyranny.
The founding documents were as much a statement about the historical character of man as it is protections against tyranny and protection of rights. In order to unite the colonies into a cohesive body capable of fighting together for a common cause, for the greater good, there were some frailties of man that would not be able to be addressed at that very crucial time, such as slavery, voting rights, etc. These issues had to be left out in order to form the union, as not everyone involved was a student of history, men's character or the Age of Reason... and they were left to future generations to educate the population and eradicate these evils to freedom and liberty.
Changing the constitution for any other reason is weakening it, not strengthening it.
For someone who talks about how we should study, you don't seem to know that the Constitution was ratified only 224 years ago not 235. I mean it would seem to me that someone who had a basic knowledge as I'm sure you claim to at least have, would that taking 2011 and subtracting 1776, which gets you 235. So no at the very least no one before 1787 fought and died for a document which didn't exist yet, and if you really think Soldiers in the present or the future thinking of the Constitution while they fight and die, let me tell you thats far far far from reality and only exists in some romantic fantastical notion people like you seem to have.
In one sense, he is right and you are wrong, in another sense, you are both wrong.
If you accept that the constitution was and is a work in progress, part of a well defined process then one must look at the entire context of the document. The first founding document was the Declaration of Independence, which lays the groundwork and builds the framework around which all other documents are drafted.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights was also written in 1776, though prior to the Declaration of Independence. This work would be heavily influential in every debate to follow, and it's influence can be seen first in the DOI.
The political thought and desire for freedom did not spring into existence between 1776 and 1787... in an unbroken line it extends back to June 15th, 1215... nearly 800 years ago with the signing of the Magna Carta.
To make sense of the constitution, to know it's clarity, there is no shortcut... not only must the thoughts and opinions of those that penned and debated these issues be known, but the school(s) of thought they studied and drew upon. And that my friends, draws back into the whole of human history and the many forms of tyranny man's weaknesses inevitably lead him to.
The constitution is sacrosanct, changes made to it were only meant to close the holes necessitated by compromise to form the union at all. They are NOT open to future interpretation... it is the PAST that must be understood and jealously guarded against. 
