I'd love to hear the author's proposed constitutional order that's somehow technologically immune from being hijacked by a well-organized illiberal majority, which requires no sustained civic education and trust, and which can sustain unlimited derision without in any way fracturing its status as a norm.
Generally speaking, any law is only good if there's consensus in upholding it. Because we write laws to simplify the implementation of the general (societal) intent, not to design the future society (although this may follow as secondary consequence). Now if the society decides some law is not applicable anymore, first they will start skirting it, then pressure to change it. A constitution is no exception, if until now the society was fine with it (a few amendments aside) it doesn't mean it will forever fine with it - societies change and laws will follow, never the other way around. Long story short: don't expect to change the society by changing the constitution. Watch for the society changing, or try to push that in some way.