Well, that is also an issue with not wanting to let go of words written centuries ago that were for their times brilliant and impressive, they were wise and just at the times that the US was 13 states and approximately 2.5 million Americans.
Other countries were smart enough to change, not just amend their original constitutions and from time to time (sometimes decades, sometimes centuries) until a totally new constitution was enacted.
Our constitution started in 1814 and new constitutions where written in 1815, 1840 and 1848 based on changes in society important enough to change the constitution. For example when Belgium from our combined nation (mostly to do with religion) and when our King relinquished most of his power to benefit the power of the people and our versions of congress and the senate.
After which several changes were made if and when needed.
In 1887 to change the voting rights laws
in 1917 to legalize voting rights for women and other small changes to our voting rights laws, proportional representation was enacted and special education (education based on religious or political basis) where made equal to public schools, both got the same amount of founding in similar situations
In 1922, the constitution was changed to enact the right of women to get elected. Ended the phrase colonies from our constitution. The possibility of objecting to military service on religious/pacifistic grounds was allowed. And declarations of war were only permissible by act of congress (our version).
In 1938, some minor governmental rules where changed as well as the way government interacted with the private sector in more constructive ways.
In 1946 and 1948 the changes had to do with the end of having colonies, as well as having a new constitution that regulated how the country of the Netherlands had to work with the other countries in the Kingdom.
Then there were several other more procedural changes in 1953, 56, 63 and 1972.
In 1971 our politicians realized that the amended constitution was not fit for purpose anymore, with the large number of changes to the world and how humans felt about what rights should be adopted for them, the government decided to start discussion with politicians and legal experts into what the new constitution should encompass with regard to more civil liberties and the coming 21st century and everything in between. The negotiations and writing of the new constitution took from 1974 to 1983 (several times the law was analyzed and help up to scrutiny by legal and constitutional experts before in 1983 there was a complete revision of the constitution.
Since then new things were added or taken from that constitution.
The way the constitution is changed is very onerous, to make sure the constitution is not changed on a whim. And it needs a new parliament to approve the changes the old parliament has written down and the new parliament has to vote for that new constitutional change with a two third majority or there will be no constitutional change. This means that only things that most parties/people agree with get changed in the constitution.
But this makes the constitution a living document that does not need a Supreme Court that explains the public and politicians how something should be read.
But I do agree that making a new constitution in the United States would be very very very difficult, especially in the highly partisan way the US is governed. But maybe it would not be a bad thing to start to discuss things people can agree to with regards to things in the constitution that could be clarified and codified so that the Supreme Court can takes it's lead from how people now want laws to be read rather than imagining how the founding fathers would have decided on something (you know, guesswork
or one could say interpret what the constitution says).