The constitution is not a immutable document and "upholding" it has never meant anything. It is whatever the courts interpet it as and in this case the judge disagreed but you pull a different judge and you might get a different outcome.
Actually, yes it is. You can amend it, but you can't edit it.
Secondly, there's a body of legal scholarship that your "different judge" has to master. It's not just a matter of policy preference.
But it is edited through the interpretation of the Supreme Court. And that's by design - the Constitution was written to be intentionally vague, which makes it unavoidably mutable.
Words are not mathematical symbols. I know you'd like them to be unambiguous, but they're not. First-year law students would probably just smile tolerantly and pat you on the head.
That simply requires a prior amendment to make it constitutional.
Then again, there’s absolutely nothing saying you need to follow it at all. That’s just a social construct. You could strike it out entirely tomorrow, and as long as your monopoly on violence remains intact there’s little anyone could do against it.
And now people understand why the Second Amendment exists... no?
The Constitution is mutable. By your definition, nothing is immutable because technically the data on the disk is overwritten in a manner technically recoverable by theoretical means.