Why don’t these critics propose Constitutional amendments?
Obviously, because it’s easier to simply rely on the judicial branch to twist the meaning, to suit the cause of the moment.
Still — why aren’t the critics challenged about this more?
What they are really saying is that rule of law is an impediment to arbitrary executive fiat. If Constitutions lose legitimacy over time then it could argued that they day after they are signed into law they are potentially out of step with latest invention or fad.
Why should they propose amendments when they can undermine and destroy the very foundation of our country without doing so?