Very cute. No discipline benefits by confining itself to opinions of 18-19th century men. Just imagine if physicists said "works of newton\leibnitz\gauss are timeless, they cannot be improved upon" There would be no electronics, no internal combustion engine, etc. I look at US constitution as a set of ideas, as a guideline that an enlightened society could build upon. In reality that is how it is even in the US. Uniform Commercial Code is nowhere in the constitution it had to be created from scratch by enlightened men. UK has no written constitution and does just fine...
Sure they are doing so great that I am thinking of reversing the tremendous mistake made by ancestors who fled England a couple of hundred years ago to practice freedoms and take opportunities that they mistakenly thought would never be offered to them if they had stayed. When I get there, I will write a book, Come Back Home, It Ain't Your Great, Great, Great Grandparents UK Anymore.
I guess this was your silly attempt at sarcasm but UK's problems have nothing to do with a lack of a written constitution.
I'm relatively sure the Founders would have been appalled at your understanding of the Constitution. It was a blueprint for a government, not a blank slate to use to force "progressive" ideas that can't be enacted democratically. The Constitution has detailed rules for amending it. If it was just a vague outline of enlightened principles, details to be filled in later, why would you have to bother with amending it? BTW, the UCC is a uniform state law. It is an example of something the Constitution left for the states.
none of you have any right to say anything about anything as you've permitted millions of illegal invaders without a peep. go back to your dances with the stars and stfu
The problem with the constitution is that it represents opinions of 17-18th century men. When in the course of a debate an issue comes up and someone says well it is not in the constitution you see it becomes an obstacle. Right of privacy is nowhere in the constitution. It is a no brainer but the it was not explicitly stated by the constitution. Because it is so vague, it frequently requires the supreme court to fill it with meaning. Supreme Court decides what exactly is "necessary and proper" what constitutes free speech, etc. One of the first decisions supreme court did (marbury v madison) was to grant itself the right judicial review(yet again it was not expressly specified by the constitution) The point I am making is that our lives to a large degree depend on wisdom created by people after constitution was written. UCC is a prime example of that. What I am saying is people should not be too attached to the literal meaning of the constitution because the constitution could be too vague or wrong or simply oudated in some parts.
Or it could be totally ignored and the Bush Administration could sanction acts of torture such as "water boarding".