Your signiture is incredible. 

We change it all the time. If the question is should we do what some on the right suggest by changing the constitution so that those born on US soil are no longer considered American. The answer is a resounding no. I mean that is a completely moronic idea that no one clearly thought through. Doing so would essentially strip every American of their citizenship. I mean think about it. It's the one amendment that defines our citizenship. Everyone's family in this country was an immigrant at one time. It would mean we would all need to get green cards and then any of us could lose our citizenship and be thrown out of the country for basically any reason. It's moronic and frankly Trump and Cruz and anyone else that supports it clearly has nefarious intentions for it, or are simply incompetent and didn't think it through.

No. Just no. The United States does not have a history or legacy that spans over 1000 years like many European and Asian countries. The only reason America exists is because people believe in the ideals that the country was founded on. Without the constitution, there is no America. There would still be the chunk of land that makes up North America and it would be something but it wouldn't be America.

Instead of getting rid of the constitution, perhaps it's time that our leaders start following it.

Who would write it?

Umm... That's taking it a bit far don't you think?

Doing amendments o the constitution should be enough, don´t you think? It´s one of the most profound and remarkable documents ever created, ut there is one point to the OP´s topic: when referring to the constitution, aren´t people exclusively referring to the amendments, not the original texts? It seems it has been replaced to the most parts but maybe I am wrong.

Throughout history, new challenges and problems arise and our laws will have to reflect that. You can only amend a constitution so much before it becomes a judical mess.
What some Americans do need to realize is that the constitution is not sacred. Laws should be there for the people, not the other way around.

No.

Its age grants it a legitimacy that we cannot replicate. There would be no hope of capturing that reverence we hold for the current constitution with a new one... We'd toss it out as fast as most countries we've written a constitution for lately chuck theirs.

Amend it if need be, don't replace it. It's one of the more important documents ever written, and for all the negative attention it receives for being vague and ill-defined at times, people don't consider that this was the intent from the start. Much like the Ten Commandments or the Roman's Twelve Tables, it was written simply and free of legal jargon so as to be accessible to the average citizen. That both our rights and the framework for the structure of our government is a document little larger than a leaflet was intended to make it digestible, a quality that I feel this generation more than any other desperately needs.

If you can't already tell, I'm rather fond of the constitution lol... Whenever we take an action the first question asked is whether its constitutional, even if we go on to violate it moments later. The document has its own inertia, gradually pulling us back when we've strayed too far and violated one of the amendments contained within. As we become increasingly secular it is the one thing we all share reverence for, binding us under a common law and set of rights.

We generally mark the true birth of our nation with the composition of the bill of rights, which is to say its been there from the start. You just can't replace that... The human mind, knowingly or unknowingly, holds in higher esteem the old and established over something that was written by that darn contemporary senator you share no views with.

Still, I'm in favor of trying as the notion of watching THIS congress try to both write and compromise their way towards a constitution that is as concise and brilliant as the first I find hilarious. Democrats would insert a right to food stamps and solar panels while republicans would be defining life as the moment carnal thoughts enter your mind.

Nope, if things really needed to be changed by the Constitution then it should just be amended.