Ron Paul poised to take on the Fed at head of financial subcommittee

[Ryft]

I frankly don't see why this 200-year old piece of legislation is held in such high regard. As an historical precedent it was a first, but defending an idea "because it's in the constitution" seems completely arbitrary.

It is held in such high regard because it is the supreme law of the United States, the very thing that sets up what the government is, its organization, its jurisdictions, its powers or what it can and cannot do, how officials attain seats, etc. It is the very thing that guarantees the people as sovereign (or more importantly, prohibits the government as sovereign) and thus a brick wall against tyranny. Therefore, deference to the Constitution is anything but arbitrary.

Keep the good parts, throw out the parts that are antiquated, clear up any confusion, etc.

That is also in the U.S. Constitution. Article 5 describes the process by which the Constitution can be altered (and it has many times).