It is, and should be, up for scrutiny as you put it. It was never thought to be perfect, and gives us a process for making it more so as times and needs change.

The constitution is extremely important.
Unfortunately, it has been adulterated over the years to the point that in many respects, it no longer exist.
One of the best examples is the second amendment. The gun nuts have changed it over time to the point the originators would not recognize is as it is applied. The second amendment was created to make available to the federal government "a well regulated militia". It was not and is not intended to let every gun nut obtain and posses what ever gun they may wish. It was to provide a "well regulated militia" to the federal government.
As it is interpreted today, it is used to let the gun manufacturers sell all the guns they can put on the shelves, whether they should ever be sold or not.

I do not get misty over such things. I do have some vicarious pride that we live under such a document, despite its flaws. It has become increasingly irrelevant after the first 100 years of its tenure. Some of that is good, I think most of that has been bad though.

It is extremly important. It has been more thoughfully worked out than any other nation's laws. While still imperfect, it covers most of what is needed for a safe and well-balanced nation. We have it to counter anyone trying to establish anything detrimenatal. And we still do not always enforce it. When it is enforced, bad things do not grow as much. Because it is closer to the best law, we also can ammend things that stop working.

The question is whether or not the Constitution is a "living" document. There are literalist that believe it should be interpreted entirely on the (presumed) meaning when the document was written and those that believe it should be interpreted within the time it is currently in. Since the beginning, every President has used it as a living document, whether or not they admitted as such. Others make their own interpretation to match their own agenda. The thing about law is that it always grows, it grows by interpreted decisions and precedent. The constitution itself is a culmination of English Common Law and Roman Law along with new ideas of that time. The biggest problem we have now is the near impossibility of adding amendments, 2/3's of Congress and 3/4's of the states can't agree on anything other than giving themselves a raise.

I think it was written as a guide line and if taken that way is fine. The supreme court is a good example of how it changes as views change. I just wish the court wasn't so political.

The beauty of the constitution is that incorporated into it is the process for amending it.

It's not the same documented that was set down 228 years ago. It has been amended 17 times.

It's not perfect, of course, but if it were followed it's a pretty good system for regulating the power of the federal government.

There is a debate between conservatives and liberals about how to interpret the constitution or how sacred a document it supposedly is. The most conservative position is called "strict constructionism" and suggests that one must divine the "original meaning" and be true to that, much the way that conservative Christians treat the Bible. From their point of view, "judicial activism" is a great evil. Meanwhile liberals believe that the framers were not prophets, they could not possibly have anticipated every change in society, and so it is not original meaning that matters, but original intent, that is, the spirit rather than the letter. And this comes largely through judicial decisions.

Basically it boils down to whether you are authoritarian or not. If you are authoritarian, then "rules are rules", they shouldn't change and there is a "right" interpretation and you might even potentially say that context doesn't matter. If you are not authoritarian, then you are more likely to just want to avoid harms and encourage boons, based on observing actual outcomes as objectively as you can.

Personally I think it was made rather too difficult to change or clarify, which puts too much burden on the judiciary to connect the document to current contexts. On the other hand I can understand that it shouldn't be TRIVIAL to amend.

It is only as important and as meaningful as it is applied and enforced.

I find it to be a little too specific in some cases and in serious need of footnotes to aid the Supreme Court in interpretation as to legislative intent. It also failed to give enough avenues for Congressional power. I envision a document of almost bullet point with the Supreme Court deciding the contours thus making it more flexible. Overall I am proud of many of its' ideas.

"...do you disagree that your freedoms and rights in society should be based on what was going on in the late 18th century." Evidently, you are not aware that the Constitution can be changed via amendments and has been done so 27 times, the last time in 1992. So, it would seem that it is NOT about "what was going on in the late 18th century."

The Constitution is in effect, a limit on the Federal Government's power (Government Class 101). Without a Constitution (and adherence to it), the Federal Government would have unlimited power...as it was in the former Soviet Union.

Your post ("...late 18th century..." ) seems to imply that your concern, in particular, is centered around the Second Amendment.

I think the ONLY thing this country still has going for it is the Constitution.
It's what makes this country THIS country. It is a living document, and changes
have been made to adjust for modernity. Changes continue to be made.
It's not an easy task for a reason. I really don't trust most people who say we need
to amend it, or worse yet, do away with it altogether. The Constitution means more
than the Pledge or the anthem, which mean absolutely nothing without it.

The U.S. Constitution is very important to me. But, many conservative misinterpretations of it I consider an abomination against our democracy and political ethic.

I am living in the 21st century. I would had been burn on a stake for using a cell phone in front of my fumbling fathers. That is my final answer. Corrections are needed... Again.

Personally I believe that the constitution should be altered and changed and updated as the centuries go by, and made less vague

Very important. It's like the only thing standing in the way of the overzealous religious crowd in the country and everyone else. The constitution still doesn't stop them fully, but it certainly helps. Despite finding this attribute personally appealing, the document is not infallible or absolute.