no it guarantees a constitutional republic, it is only in recent times that there are calls for democracy

because democracy is rule by the majority, which allows for rights to be discarded if the majority demands it

that is why when terrorist attacks happen and everyone is manipulated by fear there are calls for the trading of rights for security from the governement

that is why anyone can be seized at any moment under suspicion of terrorism and jailed for life without trial

Nope....

thank you?

Why bother creating another Constitution when it's so easy to ignore the one you already have?

Short answer , no
Long answer : no

In this day and age ... I agree with other posters this is the wrong time to do it if you were going to make the attempt.

oh yeah thanks for correcting my misquotation, but there are portions of the constitution that deal with equality under the law

not equality of outcome which is impossible since no two people really are actually equal but equality under the law which is how it should be imo

the new would have the bible as core, and the bible says slaves are fine

Kind of shows how great a book on morality it is.

While I agree with the sentiment and specifics of your post, I think that liberals and American conservatives are not much more different than the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Most things would be compromised on (as they are today, despite what people think.) Unfortunately the compromises would be on a lot of the bad things. 

I'm not necessarily adverse to having a new Constitution, or at least having some significant updates. The US Constitution only works as well as it does because of laws and judicial decisions that have taken certain components and gone nuts with them.

Besides, the original Constitution shows its heritage as a half-assed project rushed through the course of a few months for a Fall 1787 release. I'm serious. It's not even 5000 words long, about half of which is just Article 1, and can be read through in a few minutes. It had no input from fairly important figures John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, or John Hancock. They misspelled Pennsylvania at the bottom, despite the fact that everyone was in Pennsylvania for a few months by that point and 8 of the 39 signers were from Pennsylvania. They had to shove in ten amendments in a bundle within a couple of years so people could tolerate it.

The thing is, there would have to be some consensus about what in the Constitution is good, what needs improving, and what needs removal. And I don't think there is much of that. I personally have a few things I feel are vital, like a proper method of setting the number of Congressmen, but that's just me.