If we are going to do that, can we do it by explicit written amendment (as the framers intended) as opposed to allowing a bunch of 9th Circuit judges "interpret" the document to reflect "contemporary" values? Policies may change with the times, but the core values in the Constitution were not supposed to without explicit action by the senate and the states. Just to take one example, the more expansive interpreation of the commerce clause we now have may (or may not) be a good thing but I will be darned if I accept that it was the role of the Supreme Court to create it out of thin air.
Ok I admit we are now off topic, but this will become relevant if the 9th Circuit gets its hands on the recall
I wish I could predict the future (and had the answers) but I can't (and don't). We'll argue, and debate, and dispute (just as the framers did) and out of it will come some sort of consensus.
There was trouble right from the beginning - trouble writing the Constitution, trouble getting it adopted, trouble interpreting it. There's a wonderful article, "Founders Chic", in the September 2003 Atlantic Monthly. It helped me put things in perspective.