I personally just can't get behind the infallibility of the Constitution. Written in 1791 under 1791 social norms and rules by a bunch of people who, while heroes to the American way, lived in ways much different from how we do now and much of the time flew directly in the face of what they claimed to stand for (slavery, treatment of women, treatment of minorities, etc..), not to mention most were barely literate by todays standards.
Coupled with the fact that there are so many hypocrisies between the Constitution and the founding fathers' ideals and what goes on in America today. The influence the financial and energy sectors as well as the media (one way or the other) have in Washington would completely appaul people like Benjamin Franklin. Because of things like this I just can't take the "but it's in the constitution!" argument seriously. So what? Shouldn't "freedom" include the ability to adapt laws and rights based on the changing of society? What is the difference between the US holding steadfast against all things deemed Constitutional, and Muslims refusing to veer from ideolgies laid out in the Quoran? In the end they're both just old pieces of paper.
I understand the need for extensive support and difficulty for constitutional changes, otherwise the rights laid out in it don't mean a whole lot, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that all things written in it aren't subject to change.
__________________
|