The First Amendment hasn't had a word changed since 1791. It survived 118 different congresses, a civil war, and 232 years worth of technological innovation. It can only be changed if 67/100 US Senators, and 290/435 House Members agree. Or, if 38/50 state legislatures agree. The President plays no part, and can't veto. The Supreme Court plays no part in this either, but post facto of course possesses the power to "interpret" the Constitution and its Amendments.

The 21M bitcoin cap (it's technically not a cap, but successive halvings that eventually lead to ~21M), can be changed if a majority of hashpower signal support for the new developer code, while nodes checkpoint to that state. The hard fork then happens, and things continue on this chain, while the original chain—now the minority chain—is run by nodes and miners that refused the fork product. Since you have coins on both chains (assuming self-custody), it then becomes a post facto attrition of which chain incontrovertibly pulls away with the overwhelming majority of hashpower (security, transaction finality, bearer assurances), and the quote price reflects the winner, as holders ultimately dump their coin on one idea, and acquire coin on the better idea, while the developer community (wallets, apps, services, etc) overwhelmingly support one or the other.

I'll argue here the First Amendment is harder to eliminate, given the time and radical cultural changes it's endured heretofore. And that since 1791, it's gotten stronger and distributed through legal precedent.