On one hand, they creates more certainty, as most people can read and understand what the state may or may not do.

 

On the other hand, constitutions tend to create a lot of inertia - which is of course their intention - but it also means they prevent effective solutions in rapidly changing circumstances. In volatile situations their inflexibility can exacerbate social & political problems.

Edited October 6, 20177 yr by vidcapper

Depends what's in it, but my instinct is no given the rise of deadening originalism in the States - namely, hyper-conservative judges insisting that unless the right was spelled out in the original Constitution then the government has no right to confer it.

Edited October 8, 20177 yr by Qassändra

Depends what's in it, but my instinct is no given the rise of deadening originalism in the States - namely, hyper-conservative judges insisting that unless the right was spelled out in the original Constitution then the government has no right to confer it.

 

The original US Constitution was intended to be such an enlightened document, but immediately had to have the Bill Of Rights tacked into it. Not to mention that it was mysogynistic & racist by today's standards.

 

We might not fall into the *same* trap if we drew up a written constitution today, but given how moral sensibilities change over the years, we might accidentally include something that becomes seen as bigoted 200 years down the line.