Said constitution can also be changed by any act of Parliament, so I'm not sure. Parliamentary supremacy was supposedly part of the UK constitution until parliament gave up some of its sovereignty to the EU.
To add to what ceejayoz said: From an American perspective, the whole point of the constitution is that it places restrictions on the government which cannot be overridden with the mere congressional majority votes necessary for normal legislation and without an agreement by a super-majority of the states. The difficulty of changing the constitution is its defining characteristic. (The commonplace definition of a constitution--"a document which defines how the government operates"--is incidental.)
> These days, meeting such a threshold is probably effectively impossible.
At first I was inclined to agree with you, but consider this: there were six amendements to the constitution in each half of the 20th century but just four in the entire 19 century. (The Bill of Rights and the 11th Amendment were all passed before 1800.) Now, it's true that when you throw out the 27th Amendment (whose multi-century ratification time makes its 1992 passage deceiving), it has been 41 years since the last amendment was passed. But there was 60 years between the 12th and 13th Amendments and 43 years between the 15th and 16th. Neither of those two lulls were signs that the Constitution had become effectively un-amendable.
They can create them, but they can't pass them. It requires a popular referendum, and (edit) 75% of the states must ratify the amendment. Over 10,000 amendments have been proposed, but only 27 have passed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Pro...
