Is the constitution a worthy framework for modern society, and should we be required to fit contemporary principles (e.g. same-sex marriage, equal rights & suffrage, when to tax, when to go to war, etc) to this potentially outdated framework?
I'll bring up the common argument that the constitution should be a living, breathing document. It should change with the times, but unfortunately touching it is almost a taboo, reserved for only the most important of situations. Even then, it's a monumental task to get anything changed. We shouldn't abandon it, but we should semi-regularly make changes to it to reflect society at that point in time.
While textualism is rooted in absurdity and fantasy, I find comfort in the fact that we have some kind of document where the buck supposedly stops. As John Adams said, "We are a nation of laws and not of men." Without a set of laws that describes what types of laws the government can legally create, then we are a nation of men and not of laws. That said, I think there's a rational argument to be made that we could benefit from a new constitutional convention.
This brushes over the importance of the difficulties that were involved in these infidelities. Sometimes resistance to action is as important as the freedom to act. When decrees are unhindered, the scope of mistakes can grow large. Consider that for each of these infidelities, what would have the course of action been if there wasn't the Constitutional argument of resistance? I doubt that they would be more measured.The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition. As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity.
This is an important point. From this point of view, the Constitution is a thickening agent, barring us from affecting too much change at any time. This touches on a larger philosophical issue which I have studied briefly - that massive economic/societal change of any kind is generally bad for a country.
The strength of the American government is that its change is slow. This gives people time to ponder out the change, to bring up any flaws with what might occur, and prevents a government which may have gained power for a small period of time from just breaking everything quickly. It all has to be done through a process.