I'm not the one arguing that a 200 year old document can't be "outdated" though. When did I say I agreed with all the decisions my ancestors made? Britain is guilty of all 3 of those examples I gave. Do I agree with them? Not in the slightest. Would I support a 200 year old document just because "Its been the cornerstone of our country forever" even if I considered its contents to be wrong? Hell no.I think you're missing the point. Engert was saying "the Constitution" was obsolete ... I was just wondering what other parts he thinks are outdated and need to be abolished.
And for the record, your country had legal slavery, too. It was England that established slavery in the Americas. And England beat us in getting rid of it by a whole 32 years (1833 vs. 1865), mostly because they didn't need it anymore because they could just buy what they needed from the American south where the economy depended on slaves. That's why England nearly entered the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy ... to keep the cheap slave-produced goods coming.
For an example. I run a company. We're using the same 20 year old computer system we had when the company started up. I've changed a few things but not much. Do I keep using it when it becomes ill-fit for purpose for tradition? No. I change it out for something that makes more sense. I think what Engert meant was that your constitution needs a serious review to see if any of it needs to change. This can be done by referendum to ensure not vital rights are removed from you and nothing is changed without majority support of the populace.