I have a couple of quibbles with this otherwise well-written piece. First, the fact that "women" are not mentioned in the Constitution, or the Declaration either, stems in large part (IMHO) because the word "man" was often used as a generic term for "human". Of course, with the literal and "originalist" preference for interpreting the "words of the founders", it ends up resulting in sexism in reality, even if not the intention.
Second, I don't believe the founders were giants or all that brilliant. There are multiple flaws in the document, including grammatical, it is very difficult to read and interpret, it is missing a lot where it needs to be specific, and is much too detailed where it should be general. It has created a political system which is one of the most ineffectual in the world.
Other than that, I agree with you that the proper place for the US Constitution is the round file. It is more of an impediment than an avenue to protecting human rights, as it was written with the primary purpose of protecting property rights. And I do not understand the notion that our society needs to obey the rules laid down by a bunch of White bros 240 years ago.
But it won't ever be changed significantly via democratic processes going forward. The minority rule of the Senate is too important to rural cowboys. And the treatment of this document as a holy bible means that it is likely to never even be up for consideration.
There really are only two choices - revolution, or secession. Revolution would certainly be violent. Secession too, maybe, but that has a peaceable possibility if enough people get on board. But upon secession, a new country can adopt a new Constitution, or eschew it completely as in New Zealand.