I think both
Our Constitution has been functionally amended by very large (often gradual) changes in jurisprudence over time, so it’s changed more than an outside observer would guess based on the amendment process alone.
The written Constitution actually has preserved the morality of our system and made our country more successful because it promotes limited government via the federal system as well as making it easier to develop strong positions related to some of the Bill of Rights. But it’s hard to separate this from American culture perhaps, due to (1).
I didn’t disagree-vote and I’m not sure what those people are disagreeing about.
I think your point is reasonable and novel among the comments or Twitter replies. I don’t have a strong take on “lock-in,” though; I guess it’s definitely possible to imagine some technology that creates lock-in but in general I think it’s overrated. For example, I don’t think mass surveillance per se creates lock-in for governance, and I don’t think the American Constitution has “locked us in” to its words as much as others say.
I do think that governance in general changes over time as technology changes in somewhat deterministic ways, e.g. I think that it intuitively seems correct that over the last 100 years democracy and parliamentarianism has gradually been replaced by administrative rule because the balance of military power has changed: masses can’t be used by counter-elites to threaten the state the way they could during the age where amateur riflemen were an important military power, roughly between the American Revolution and Spanish Civil War.