Why It’s Time for a New Wave of Constitutional Amendments

David O. Stewart, a lawyer and writer in Washington, is the author of “Madison’s Gift: Five Partnerships that Built America,” which will be released on February 10, 2015.


James Madison and the other delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 did not suffer from the Constitution-worship that sometimes afflicts American politics. They took care to include an effective process for amendments, since they thought the document was bound to be flawed.
Indeed, many condemned the Constitution at first. Three major states (Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York) ratified by whisker-thin margins. Neither North Carolina nor Rhode Island joined the new republic until after the government was formed. The founding generation drafted thirteen out of the twenty-seven amendments adopted so far.

Four waves of amendments have wrought critical changes in the Constitution. The new Congress should commence a fifth. Government now founders in corrosive gridlock, perpetuated by congressmen who effectively serve for life in gerrymandered districts. Never-ending presidential campaigning absorbs spiraling amounts of money. Voter participation sinks to new lows.
These failures are not solely the fault of small-caliber politicians and a somnolent citizenry. We need structural changes. As Madison insisted in 1788, experience “points out the faults which really call for amendment.”
Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote by each house of Congress, then ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures (today, that means thirty-eight states). The process is difficult, but previous generations have made it work.


http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/158357

Meh...I'm not so sure. First, a constitution should address only those matters of enduring and profound significance. Too many amendments turns the Constitution into frivolous legislation over 'petty crimes and parking matters'. With 50-states and several territories, all with constitutions, we have had many, many experiments by which we have learned this lesson.

Second, the constitution is your founding document. If you turn it into a parade of passing fads and fancies, it doesn't say much for the longevity of your foundation.

Even our Constitution is flawed in that it has petty matters mixed in with more profound things. For example, along side of profound matters such as equality before the law, we have things like quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime or wartime (Third Amendment). These provisions arise out of matters of passing significance at one point in time, but of no real, enduring concern.

Beyond the issue of clutter, the author seems to be arguing simply for change for the sake of change. I think it's better to address the specifics, and let the whole take shape as it will.