...unless, of course, you mean the Constitution of ancient Rome.
Many seem to have made the false assumption that we're stuck with the filibuster and the supermajority requirement in the Senate to stop a filibuster. So here's some news:
The filibuster is not in the United States Constitution. Nope. Go ahead. Go look. I dare you.
In the United States Senate, rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. According to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could however be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, and in this case votes from two-thirds of the Senators present and voting would be required to break the filibuster. Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option. In current practice, actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.
Got it? It's a Senate rule, and now you don't even have to filibuster to get the effect of filibustering. Isn't that nice and tidy. Wouldn't want to actually make a Senator work, now, would you?
And what about the House of Representatives?
In the House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limited the duration of debate. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until an 1890 rule eliminated it. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes.
Imagine the braying filibustering we would have seen yesterday.