Should the Constitution Be Updated?

There are considerations to be considered in considering such a question, before answering.  If the answer is "no", it would be so for the sole possibility of fear of the weakening, rather than the strengthening of the document's principles.  As the quintessential, near perfect guide for societal governance, any edit or addendum would have to be penned sparingly and precisely.  The few mistakes of which I wrote in "The Framers Made a Few Mistakes" were mistakes that were more of a matter of semantics than of principles.  As time tells, there are mistakes of omission, primarily due to history's technological advances, particularly in the fields of transportation and communication and weaponry, rather than to the Framers' shortcomings or short-sightedness.  They were, undoubtedly, the wisest, most far seeing men in history up to that time.  But even they could not have ever foreseen or imagined America and the world as they are now.
At the top of that list of considerations for me, as a 21st century Son of the American Revolution, is the concept of states' rights.  From colonial times well into the nineteenth century, travel and communication between states were slow, arduous processes, dependent on walking, horseback riding, man and animal powered boats and sailing ships.  Under such limiting circumstances, the states must have seemed like distant, disparate foreign countries to one another.  Such circumstances would make it plausible for peoples in different states to want to have governing rules specific to themselves and their specific mores of conduct and behavior.
With the invention, advent and improvement of fuel fired vehicles from steam ships, boats  and locomotives to petroleum powered cars, trucks, train engines and jet airplanes and to nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines, along with the correlative advances from smoke signals and loud yelling to telegraph, telephone, radio, television and satellites, distances have metaphorically shrunk to insignificance, making all Americans instantaneously interconnected with one another.  As an interconnected, unified country, I wonder if the concept of states' rights is one of obsolescence. Aren't rights unalienable constructs to be enjoyed by persons, rather than political entities?   Should not all law be uniform throughout a country, regardless of geo-political boundaries and borders within that sovereign nation?  Aren't the "full faith and credit" and "equal protection" clauses sort of precursor to such?  Of course, with totally centralized law making and enforcement, more specificity is necessary to distinctly define the limitations and restraints of that government's power and influence over its people to that of protecting individuals and entities from loss or harm through force or fraud committed by another, especially if committed by that government itself or committed as the ultimate use of force and fraud; war, using any tactic.  Having moved from flintlock muskets and black powder cannon to automatic hand guns and assault rifles to carrier groups, ICBMs and nuclear, biological and chemical threats, the Constitution's foremost directive for government has to be, as it has been, protecting America against war and domestic violence.  Geo-political divisions within a country should be for hierarchical and functional organization only.
Without states' rights and with a federal Constitution truly being the supreme law of the land, representation in a federal legislature could and should be unicameral.  Especially since the ratification of the seventeenth amendment, the Senate has outlived its usefulness.  Conceived as a compromise to appease and unify the various disparate states, the Senate was basically designed to represent the rich, while the House of Representatives was meant to serve the masses, much like the British Parliament's House of Lords and House of Commons.  It also created a reality of some areas being overly represented at the federal level.  As for the presently specified duties of the Senate to have advice and consent constraints on the President, those duties could be served by a Board of Governors, consisting of the elected executive authority of each State, District, Commonwealth, Territory, etc., and by what I call the Native Nations...you know, the "Indians".  There's a group of Americans worthy of and lacking in federal representation.
Federal representation should not be a set number of representatives to be divided among geographical locales.  The number should be fluid, so that representatives represent an approximately equal number of constituents, say, 500,000.  That would presently be about 600 members in one chamber, as opposed to 541  members of the present two chamber system.  That six hundred number would rise and fall with national population.  They would be elected by geographically proximate populations of voters within each of the several states and so forth, with each such geo-political area having at least one elected representative.  Exception to the geographic proximity rule would be made for the widely dispersed peoples of the Native Nations and their number in each state would be subtracted from that state's population to be represented separately in the federal legislature.  A system to specifically represent residents of cross border metropolitan areas with municipal commonalities irrelevant of a state line dividing the metro would probably be logical, but too logistically improbable to implement.  The model of Virginia's Independent Cities could be utilized to overcome that.
Perhaps the most radically advanced update would be converting the basic form of governance from democratic republicanism to republican democracy.  Because of communications technology, true democracy is possible for the first time in history.  As the founders knew, democracy can quickly and easily turn to mob rule and tyranny of the majority over the minority, if not Constitutionally tempered by rule of law.  Legislation and Proclamation could be affirmed or denied by a vote of the electorate using contemporary communicative devices...you know, really smart smart phones that would have little printers to produce a hard copy of each vote.  Again, guards and guidelines of Constitutionality protecting against mob mentality overwhelming rationality would have to be in place to ensure all individuals' rights to life, liberty and property in their private and public pursuits of happiness.
In any new Constitution, the amendments, as applicable, would be written into the body of the document.  The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause should be more specifically defined, so as to include exile to The Rat Islands in Alaska's Aleutians for the most heinous and horrendous offenders, including those government officers and employees convicted of Breach of the Public Trust.   The fourteenth amendment's wording would need rewriting, so as to forever end the forever on-going, verb tense grammatical misinterpretation.
Any other thoughts?    Please, comment.  And see my blog article "The Framers Made a Few Mistakes" originally posted March 3rd, with edits and addenda of this date.