I profess my ignorance of Constitutional law and any constitutional issue that I approach simply as a layman. As a historian, however, I am struck that the US is one of the few modern societies that has not tried to introduce a new Constitution amid rapidly changing societal conditions. This  is indicative of the relative stability that the US has enjoyed in over two centuries. However, it also reflects the steadfast commitment to the status quo as it was conceived by the Founding Fathers whose views may have some relevance in the 21st century.

The British are not coming any time soon to invade the American colonies, monarchy is not an issue unless one consider the presidency 'imperial', the social structure is completely different today as shaped by the new high-tech, high-finance economy resting on finance capitalism and not agricultural and merchant interests. There is no native American or slavery issue, there is a multi-ethnic population that will soon replace the white European descendants as the majority. Society and its institutions will change even more rapidly in the course of this century making the world's oldest constitution less relevant to people's lives.

There have been thousands of essays devoted to the thesis of whether the US needs a new constitution, and counter-arguments that most Americans believe their constitution is the best on the planet, arguments that the US CONSTITUTION is as highly regarded as the Bible, and that others from around the world admire and wish to emulate it. The historic significance of the Constitution and all the reverence it symbolizes to most citizens is of course an issue confused with the rapid changes that have taken place and the resolve as well as fear on the part of many not to temper with something that could upset the status quo, some unknown constitution that could usher in uncertainty and perhaps fewer protections for citizens than they currently enjoy.

Because human beings are not angels and angels do not govern humans as Madison observed, a constitution that generally defines the boundaries of rights and privileges of all people, as well as role of branches of government is needed for order in society and the sense of justice and fairness that a social contract provides.

Regardless of the 14th Amendment, a constitution created by white European middle class males to serve the needs of that narrow social group is need of serious examination. Justice Antonin Scalia's interpretation of the 14th Amendment is the latest example of how it is up to individual justices based on their ideological and political orientation to interpret the Constitution.

Unintentionally, Justice Scalia by his own minimalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment actually makes a good case on why a new Constitution is needed. He maintains that women have no constitutional protection against discrimination and that it is up to Congress to pass laws to prevent sex discrimination, rather than rely on the 14th Amendment ratified against the background of the Civil War.  "Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it
prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant.
Nobody ever voted for that."http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/03/scalia-14th-amendments-reach-bush-v-gore-and-pizza#ixzz1AR7J9IY6

Precisely because of the very narrow and minimalist interpretation that Justice Scalia provides of the 14th Amendment, I would argue he makes the perfect case on why there is a great need to examine the issue of a new updated Constitution that reflects society as it now exists and as it is likely to evolve in the 21st century. If Scalia wishes to deny women their rights under the 14th Amendment, then lawmakers need to consider if the existing constitution and its amendments constitute sufficient guarantee for the rights of all citizens.