Even when something has overwhelming support, it can be nearly impossible. Often, people will support something (as they indicate to pollsters) but vote against it because of the ties of politics: "I'll vote against the thing that bugs you if you'll vote against the thing that bugs me".

We've had no nontrivial amendments in half a century, and even nontrivial laws are rare. The national conversation has taken a nosedive, and I believe a considerable piece of it is that there is a large minority who benefits from nothing happening. Any "compromises" happen by skirting the rules: Supreme Court judgments, Executive branch declarations, and other actions that bypass the intended routes of discussion.

c/had/borrowed

> some parts of the Constitution as originally ratified were simply a product of reaching a compromise that both Northern and Southern states would both be on board with.

A compromise that didn't even work well or last, as violently evidenced by the Civil War.

> The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed via amendments

In the past hundred years, it's only been amended eight times. One of those was to repeal a previous amendment (alcohol prohibition). Three of the eight are related to Presidential terms and succession. Another one, the last amendment in 1992, was about Congressional salaries. The last substantial amendment, over 50 years ago, lowered the voting age to 18.

Amendments to the Constitution have become practically nonexistent.

> it benefits the country as a whole

The Constitution never benefited the country as a whole, as I already explained in my previous comment.