✔ 最佳答案
Not always.
They were making a constitution that was tuned to their own time an perception, which got massively flawed over the years.
The electoral college, for instance, was designed to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority' in a context that envisioned several concurrent opinions and political stances and parties, and was meant to force everyone to reach a consensus. Today, with only two real parties, this is turning the system into a 'tyranny of the minority' where an obese orange disgrace could be president despite having had nearly 3 million less votes than the opponent.
In the early days of the country, the most powerful gun was a muzzle-loading, smooth bore single shot flintlock musket. Those had a rate of fire of one shot every 15 seconds in the hand of experts, and a range of barely 80 yards.
Compare with an AR15, with an effective range of 500 yards, a rate of fire that is "as fast as you can pull the trigger" in semi-automatic mode (that is 3 shorts per second for the best shooters) and 10 shots per second in full auto, with magasines that can reach 100 rounds (and with a drum that has 150 rounds).
Yet, that 2nd amendment, now 228 years old, is still supposed to be "pertinent" and you see all those mass shootings, and the NRA defending this.
It is time for a new constitution that defends more the fundamental rights and less the privileges.