:rolli: you're an idiot Nocapzy I'm sticking with your OP here
I think that the relevance of the constitution is a very interesting concept since it is both a historical document and the supreme law of our land. The Constitution has adapted with time to accomodate certain changes in society, such as the emancipation of slaves and the voting rights of women, but it has been argued that the constitution will never change as quickly as the public opinion on a matter does since an amendment takes a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress or a 2/3 majority of the states in order to Amend the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's function is to interpret the Constitution for us, since the times have changed and none of the founding fathers are any longer living in order to tell us what each different portion of the Constitution means. There are 2 styles of interpreting the Constitution, strict and loose interpretation. Strict interpretationists usually stick with the conventional meanings of the written words of the Constitution while the loose interpretationists are usually willing to read into the words of the constitution meanings that seem more relevant to modern life.
Both sides have thier shortcomings- too strict of an interpretation is ridgid and often fails to meet with the needs of modern society while too loose of an interpretation can erode the freedoms that the Constitution was put into place to protect.
I tend to find the Constitution to be a very important document, in that it outlines what freedoms we have and how our government is to conduct its business and I think that to toss it as being irrelevant would be a horrible and stupid mistake. It is an important document that we must hold to be so, but still has room for improvement, which will come with time.
There, is that a good enough answer for you?