Should the American Constitution be Revised?

Many people today believe the Constitution of the United States has become outdated, so they believe there should be a convention to revise it.  I believe this is a good idea.  The current constitution was written over two hundred years ago, and let’s admit it, times have changed. 

The amendment system that we currently have has allowed changes to be made to it, but these are not really enough to take care of all the big problems.    There have been twenty-seven changes to the constitution which have helped with problems as the country has grown, but the time has come for bigger changes to be made. 

According to Danny Tyree, on average, nations tend to completely reboot their Constitutions every nineteen to twenty years.  Thomas Jefferson felt that each generation needed to have a say in the governing framework, so he proposed that it be rewritten every twenty years.  James Madison on the other hand did not like the idea of having the nation thrown into political turmoil every two decades.  

I agree that the constitution needs to change as the times change, but at the same time I do not think it would be wise for the nation to completely start over that often.  For example, if the average person lives to be around 80 years old, that means they will live under a completely new system of government four times in their life.  For a county this big, that is a lot of change for a lot of people. 

The constitution is in need of changes bigger than the small ones from Amendments, but this should maybe happen every fifty years instead of twenty.  Also, instead of big changes, or complete renewal, the constitution should just have the necessary adjustments made to it.  This should be done by a group of representatives (one or two from each state).  It should be a group that can look at the needs of Americans, and decide what the best decisions would be quickly and efficiently.  This group should be able to propose the proper changes, and then these proposals should be presented to the people, and then voted on.  I do not believe that they should go through the Senate or the House because the politicians would just spend time debating them, revising them, debating them some more, adding more revisions, and finally after years of revisions and debates (and possibly extra add-ins in the fine print) they would come to an agreement.  This would take so much time and effort that by the time everything was complete, it would be time to start the whole process over again.  Overall the constitution does need to be revised periodically because times have changed.