Currently Online 
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.
Love and tolerate.
