I understand your hypothesis, but I do not believe looking at Iceland’s example is prudent. Seeking a fresh economic start does not require a constitutional convention, nor does it justify one. Trashing core documents is a tempting path during a crisis period. The false illusion of going back to zero and restarting assumes that the bad habits that got you to the crisis point won’t be waiting for you later on.Hey, I have a better idea. Instead of trying to change the constitution lets try to follow it! The constitution is the supreme law of the land… How about applying the constitution to any law being passed? That way you’ll know when government is overreaching. Don’t change the constitution – ENFORCE IT.Hate to break it to you…but the constitution has been changed before… 27 times to be exact (although the first 10 are what you would call The Bill of Rights). it took a change to the constitution to eliminate slavery and give those former slaves the same god-given right to vote that white men had.

it took a change to the constitution to give women the right to vote. the constitution is a living document that the founders designed with the idea that we can change it to adapt to the world. they could not forsee everything that was going to happen in the world, so they gave us article 5 which lays out the amendment process. sorry to rain on your ”never change the document” parade with reality.The U. S. Constitution allows for revisions, it’s called Constitutional Amendments. Over the years, we have had several amendments, most of them have been an incredible furtherance of freedom and liberty for all individuals. While amending the Constitution is a long and arduous process, it ultimately protects the individual against mob rule or tyranny of the majority. Let’s not forget the United States is not a democratic nation, one man one vote, but a republic, rule of law. This is all aimed at protecting the individual rights of citizens, not the rights of the majority over the minority.

When the Constitution was first approved the largest population disparity between states represented in the Senate was 8 to 1. Today the largest disparity is 74 to 1 (California to Wyoming). For matters in the Senate, voters in California have 1/74th the voting power of voters in Wyoming.This disparity is practically astronomical and unforeseeable during the founders time. We need to do something to level that playing field. What issues is Wyoming really getting pushed around on? Does Wyoming really deserve statehood with a total population no bigger than a medium-sized city?