Great Idea!  

I think the world has moved so far beyond the 1800’s and the globalization (promoted and progressed by our nation) has moved beyond symbols. Economics and governance values will define the nations of future.  The US Constitution is most unique and enduring, integral part of “the USA”. I agree with your suggestion to bring our Constitution to the forefront and sacrosanct for our nation. 

There is much to admire in the constitution, but it ( and the laws which follow it) are seriously flawed.  One might argue that if we had majority rule instead of minority rule (no electoral college) the last Presidential election would have been so clearcut there wouldn’t have been discussions about “alternate slates of electors” and state legislatures overturning the vote of the people.
In their defense, those in attendance at the constitutional convention had to make huge compromises to get it adopted—such as allowing all states to have two Senators regardless of population. (note I didn’t call them “founders” as I think that implies an undue reverence.)

Until we get amendments addressing many of these issues, I couldn’t consider pledging allegiance to it. Amendments addressing the minority rule caused by having two Senators per state, the filibuster, the problems with the Supreme Court and our tendency to treat presidents as kings ( power to overule a judge and jury with pardons?  executive privilege?)

“Thomas Jefferson believed that a country’s constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. Instead, the U.S. Constitution, which Jefferson did not help to write (he was in Paris serving as U.S. minister to France when the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia), has prevailed since 1789.

“Jefferson thought the dead should not rule the living, thus constitutions should expire frequently, but the fact is that the U.S. Constitution quickly became enshrined by the public and is the oldest constitution in the world,” said Zachary Elkins, a professor of political science at Illinois.”

https://tinyurl.com/y3p2y5m7

We’re just talking about a different, better form of representation, not where all 258 million of us over eighteen vote on every single thing.  I think generally small states have been “lording” it over larger states if you look at how long it took to end slavery, create civil rights laws etc.   
If 80 of the 100 people on a local PTA ( parent teacher association) want textbook A to be used for math, is that tyranny of the majority or simply the way things should work?  The alternative would be that the 20 who want textbook B prevail—what sense would that make?
Also, I think the first amendment says something about including religion in our government, which I would extend to any pledge of allegiance.

“The Senate Is Split 50-50, But Democrats Represent 41.5 Million More People”

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1002593823/how-democratic-is-american-democracy-key-pillars-face-stress-tests

Before continuing any discussion on the “pledge”, I suggest everyone read the history of this artificial, divisive, quasi-religious and faux patriotic recitation HERE.   By my statement, I think you know where I am going on this topic. 

In the meantime, I must state that reciting this contrived statement is not what I will do.  I stopped this “pledge” long ago and amazingly my patriotism stands.  I disagree with John that in changing the wording will make it more palatable in any sense.  There is NO NEED for a pledge whatsoever either to the flag or anything else, except in some form for those becoming a naturalized citizen and that is to the Consititution, as badly flawed a document that is, but that is a discussion for another day.

And if you missed my article about the flag a short while back you can read it here:  Just Whose Flag Is It Anyway?

 Interesting article on the pledge Dick, including a long section on court cases about it.  I suspect we haven’t heard the last of that, especially on the “under God” portion.
I do think discussing the constitution is relevant here, since the OP lists it as the appropriate target of any pledge.

Angelo,

You wrote:  ” I agree with John that we should pledge allegiance to the US Constitution but “God” should stay in there. Most people believe in a god or gods and atheists pretty much believe they are their own god whether consciously or not. Therefore “God” should stay in there.”

This statement is pretty much insulting, demeaning, arrogant and logically incoherent.  I am not sure how you devine the thoughts and beliefs of those who say they have no belief and have the chuztpa to tell them that you know better than they that which they experience “conciously or unconciously”.  Furthermore, that your extraordinary ability is sufficient to tell the so-called “unbelievers” that they should just suck it up and recite a loyalty oath that is against their prinicples because “we who believe say so.” 

The one time I took an oath was on the occasion of my commissioning as an officer in the US Army.  I took that oath willingly and with no mention of any diety. 

I (state your full name), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Second Lieutenant, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

There is an OPTION to add “so help me god”. 

But the pledge of allegiance is not an oath of office.  It is nothing more than an artifice created to make the writer or the reciter feel good or patriotic or some such.  If you are interested there is more on this pledge stuff in this article “It is time to dump the pledge.”

The pledge and patriotism are not synonymous.