The Founding Fathers knew that the Constitution was imperfect, which was why they left it open for amendment. Constitutional amendments seem like they used to be something of an answer to "We can't do that, the Constitution doesn't say we can" argument.
"We can't make slaves citizens!"
>Amend the Constitution
"We can't elect Senators by the popular vote!"
>Amend the Constitution.
"We can't ban booze!"
>Amend the Constitution.
"We can't give women the right to vote!"
>Amend the Constitution.
"We can't limit the number of terms the President serves!"
>Amend the Constitution.
Constitutional amendment seemed like it was a relatively agreeable and successful process that took at most a few years to complete, which by today's standards is a miraculous occurrence that anything could be done so quickly. But as @LizzieMaine points out, at some point in time, the Constitution in its present state became treated as gospel, and the notion of amending it became the idea of heretics. And, in the end, a relatively amicable process became taboo.
"We can't make slaves citizens!"
>Amend the Constitution
"We can't elect Senators by the popular vote!"
>Amend the Constitution.
"We can't ban booze!"
>Amend the Constitution.
"We can't give women the right to vote!"
>Amend the Constitution.
"We can't limit the number of terms the President serves!"
>Amend the Constitution.
Constitutional amendment seemed like it was a relatively agreeable and successful process that took at most a few years to complete, which by today's standards is a miraculous occurrence that anything could be done so quickly. But as @LizzieMaine points out, at some point in time, the Constitution in its present state became treated as gospel, and the notion of amending it became the idea of heretics. And, in the end, a relatively amicable process became taboo.