Many political scientists and constitutional scholars now describe the U.S. Constitution as "constructively unamendable." This means that while it is legally possible to change it, the political reality makes it functionally impossible.

Because the amendment process is broken, the energy for changing the "rules of the game" has shifted to the Supreme Court. Since the Constitution cannot be easily changed by the people, political groups fight to appoint judges who will "interpret" the Constitution to mean what they want:

  • In many other democracies, abortion rights were settled by legislation or constitutional referendum. In the US, it was granted by the Court (Roe) and taken away by the Court (Dobbs), because the amendment process was too paralyzed to address it.
  • The Citizens United ruling fundamentally changed the political landscape. To overturn it would require an amendment, which is currently impossible, so the Court's word stands as final.

...

Scholars refer to this as 'constitutional calcification.' The U.S. has the hardest constitution to amend in the democratic world. Until the partisan divide softens or one party achieves a massive, generational dominance, the U.S. is likely stuck with the Constitution exactly as it is.

@codinghorror as an Australian with little choice but to observe all the nonsense that comes out of the States I've often wondered why there's no meaningful talk about repealing, say, the 2nd Amendment. Even if it doesn't stand a chance of getting up, wouldn't it at least be an effort to shift the Overton window back? Put gun lobbyists on the proper defensive? Seems strange it's never even mentioned as an option.