Yes it s a great system because foundational change requires a super majority of consensus across multiple political lines. Not just a mob showing up with pitch forks demanding the flavor of the week.
Politically speaking, it's a terribly flawed document, because it can't change it without a civil war or functionally one party rule, and its written in imprecise language that opens it up to more judicial interpretation than is necessary or constructive.
Ideally we'd see less of "judges rule without interpreting it strictly," which would help garner popular support for future amendments.
I'd also reiterate that social factors have changed, we're currently in the longest break between amendments being passed since reconstruction. None have been passed in my lifetime, and the same group that says we should interpret the constitution extremely strictly is also the one that says that it's perfect as is and we should respect it and the founders great insights. That's not a recipe for changing it.
> Ideally we'd see less of "judges rule without interpreting it strictly,"
That's, just, like, your opinion, man. By which I mean that originalism isn't the only school of thought in regards to the constitution. By the time you've succeeded in convincing people that it is okay to change the constitution, you'll have also convinced them that interpreting it less strictly. Saying it's a living document but not a living constitution is an impossibly hard needle to thread.
And that's doubly true when "should the document be changed" itself becomes a political question, which it has. Something like 20-30% of the US will vote for people on a platform of "I will oppose any constitutional amendment". That's enough to block ratification!
18 times (Articles 3-12 of the proposed Bill of Rights were ratified simultaneously and became Amendments 1-10; article 2 took 201 more years, and Article 1, though it was once one state away from ratification, has still not been ratified and is 27 states short.)
It's not rule by the minority. It's that the majority needs to get wider agreement on their changes if they are to be implemented. The minority cannot force anything to happen. They can only prevent sweeping changes from passing with the slimmest of margins.
For every liberal complaining about the filibuster or Senate debate rules, would you have been fine with total Republican control of all levels of Federal government from 2016-2018? They had a wider majority in both the House and the Senate than the Democrats do right now.
Slowing the pace of massive change is a good thing. It gives time for ideas to be fleshed out. It gives time for ideas to be experimented with at a smaller scale. It gives time for people to see the results or consequences of actions.
Yes the systematic unequal representation in (in descending order of inherent distortion, though abuse of state-level control of apportionment in the latter case means it's not always descending order of actual distortion) the Senate, Electoral College, and House all favor essentially the same geopgraphy and thus the same political faction so long as ideology isn't geographically homogeneous. This favors stable minority rule.