I don't understand why the US constitution is weirdly revered by people in this country. It was fairly forward thinking for its time... but it was written almost 250 years ago. I think it's safe to say the world has changed pretty dramatically over the course of a quarter of a millennium.
You change the laws through the Constitutional process. Period. Otherwise, you are arguing for revolution, and that only involves violence of some sort. If you want things to get really bloody, then revolution is what you want. And guess what? A bunch of people are willing to fight you to the death over it.
The Constitution can be amended. It can be changed through a Constitutionally legal process, therefore there is no need for a new constitution. If there is a political will for change, it can be done.
Stop and think what might go wrong if we were to throw away to constitution. Are you so sure you will get what you want in a new constitution? Stop for a moment and do a risk/reward analysis on that one.
The US constitution is the second oldest one after Belgium. Now we are living in the 21st century. There needs to be a new one but usually that only happens with a bigger historic event. Maybe that's what Tucker Carlson is going for?
Do you have an outline of this new Constitution you want?
One reason it may be controversial to suggest the US needs a new Constitution is because the half-wits like yourself suggesting the need for a new one, have no idea what the new one should say that the current one doesn't.
I would guess the average IQ of politicians today is at least 30 points lower than the "founding fathers" (whatever that means). Not that they were geniuses, but narcissism and extraversion are probably the main predictors of political involvement today.
So who exactly would be making this constitution? That's the question.