The low hanging fruit was picked early; you can only pass the first amendment once.
Changing SCOTUS philosophies, in particular the rise of Living Constitution Doctrine, meant that formal amendments were not required because the Justices would just make up new interpretations of old words to suite contemporary political situations. With the recent fall from favour of this doctrine and the rise of Origionalism it seems possible to me we might see more amendments in the future.
Why then do you think there are fewer amendments overtime?
I think there are two main reasons:
The low hanging fruit was picked early; you can only pass the first amendment once.
Changing SCOTUS philosophies, in particular the rise of Living Constitution Doctrine, meant that formal amendments were not required because the Justices would just make up new interpretations of old words to suite contemporary political situations. With the recent fall from favour of this doctrine and the rise of Origionalism it seems possible to me we might see more amendments in the future.
Interesting. Thanks for your comments.
In the meantime, I would treat the constitution component in the piece as a metaphor to illustrate the idea of lock-in for a general audience.