The Constitution of the United States was intended to be updated regularly however the United States is over 200 years old and The Constitution, the Law of the Land, is severely outdated. The amendments all need to be reworded (for instance in the 2nd amendment there is no militia, there are no standing armies of farmers anymore) and modernized (esp. Relating to the 1st amendment and the management of petitions and Free Speech in the digital age) and even added to (for instance there is nothing in The Constitution about sexuality as we know it modernly at all though ethnicity is relatively new with the 14th amendment and this update was over 150 years later after the 1st amendment allowed for freedom of religion) because as wonderful a document it is the forefathers did not intend for there to be no changes to it for the duration of the life of the country.
Why are people so adverse to changing and updating The Constitution?
The constitution is definitely one of the most significant documents ever written. However, it has become a bit dated. For example, the 2nd amendment only creates problems rather than protecting peoples rights. Another example, the 7th amendment states that if a person steals an object that is $20 or higher they must go to court. Obviously the price should be increased due to the fact that there is a huge difference between money today and back in the 18th century.
Have you seen the corruption in our government?! If it were so easy or if we could just "update" it all the time, we would loss all of our freedoms, and rights. I could see if we had a corruption free government I would be all for it, but with Obama and his cabinet in I would absolutely not let them change it!
The US Constitution is a living document.
We currently have an amendment process, the first 10 came with the constitution, We have 27 now in total to my knowledge. The last amendment took place in the 90's and we have had a new amendment every 10-20 years (so that is about 1 amendment for every generation). Thus the US constitution has a method of adding changes. The process was meant to be a little slower to allow for debate and the development of an eventual large censuses to make it hard for bad laws to slip in. Thus the small non partisan items are not the reason they want to change it.
Those advocating their displeasure with the constitution do so for one main reason. They don't believe they can convince the vast majority of us to agree to obey their set of rules.
Generally speaking the laws they want to apply on the rest of society go against the constitution. Considering that the Constitution itself was a very minimalist document (hence we have a SC to extrapolate) the changes from naysayers usually are to restrict freedoms they don't believe people should have, which are already protected in the constitution.
So instead of going through the legal process of adding changes which the majority agree with, they usually hide behind the false notion that somehow it is a static/outdated item rather than the fact that the actual items they want in are not the items the vast voting majority would agree upon.