Personally? I think its because the US Constitution wasn't written to solve every problem of the day. It was written as a framework, to let lawmakers solve problems as they came up. And the framework is malleable enough so that it can be changed as needed, if it becomes a problem, rather than a solution.
Depending on how you interpret it, it's also duck-typed on the moral and social norms of the society it governs. Consider some of the amendments--"cruel and unusual punishment"? The standards of punishment, including capital punishment, in the 18th century don't meet with current standards. Un-enumerated rights? The society of James Madison was not one where the fundamental right to privately use contraception and engage in homosexuality was recognized as a moral imperative, ours is, yet the same Constitution works for both.
The eigth amendment doesn't go as far as to define "cruel and unusual punishment" is. The nineth amendment doesn't define what rights should or shouldn't be protected.
Yes, there are some basic rights that are protected. But largely, the Constitution much more of a guideline about how the legal system should work than it is an absolute set of laws to be followed forevermore. Ambiguities are good in this case. Even if it did get Hamilton shot by Burr.
Also because, to paraphrase coffeemug, it was intended to "bring a meaningful change in the world. A huge change. A 1000% change."
As far as I know it's the only country founded on a set of enduring, fundamental moral principals, rather than because a bunch of tribes happened to be living in the same vicinity and some warlord or king 'united' them, or as you say to solve the contemporary problems of the day.
Comments
Personally? I think its because the US Constitution wasn't written to solve every problem of the day. It was written as a framework, to let lawmakers solve problems as they came up. And the framework is malleable enough so that it can be changed as needed, if it becomes a problem, rather than a solution.
Depending on how you interpret it, it's also duck-typed on the moral and social norms of the society it governs. Consider some of the amendments--"cruel and unusual punishment"? The standards of punishment, including capital punishment, in the 18th century don't meet with current standards. Un-enumerated rights? The society of James Madison was not one where the fundamental right to privately use contraception and engage in homosexuality was recognized as a moral imperative, ours is, yet the same Constitution works for both.
The eigth amendment doesn't go as far as to define "cruel and unusual punishment" is. The nineth amendment doesn't define what rights should or shouldn't be protected.
Yes, there are some basic rights that are protected. But largely, the Constitution much more of a guideline about how the legal system should work than it is an absolute set of laws to be followed forevermore. Ambiguities are good in this case. Even if it did get Hamilton shot by Burr.
Also because, to paraphrase coffeemug, it was intended to "bring a meaningful change in the world. A huge change. A 1000% change."
As far as I know it's the only country founded on a set of enduring, fundamental moral principals, rather than because a bunch of tribes happened to be living in the same vicinity and some warlord or king 'united' them, or as you say to solve the contemporary problems of the day.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1747713