What makes a constitution endure?(uchicago.edu) |
What makes a constitution endure?(uchicago.edu) |
If a written constitution can actually endure "through periods of dictatorship and democracy", it may be notable in that the document itself survived and remained, nominally, in legal force for a very long time, but it's somewhat failed at providing a stable form of government, hasn't it? I'd rather have something like, say, France, where they've rewritten the constitution enough times to be on their Fifth Republic but at least they've had a republic of some form for over a hundred years (not counting foreign occupations and puppet states).
Also, judging by the explicit and implicit amendments and interpretations, the US is arguably on its third Constitution--the first being the Articles of Confederation, the second being the antebellum Constitution, and the third being the present Constitution.
The Progressives also made some significant changes (popular election of Senators, income tax), but one can at least argue that was done through the system by the amendment process. By the time of FDR, only fig leafs were required (e.g. the effective ban on private ownership of machine guns through a $3,250 "tax" (in today's dollars, or "The switch in time that saved nine" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch_in_time_that_saved_nine )) ... during the Great Depression). Now, D.C. doesn't even bother with the fig leafs ... one might seriously question how much we really live under the rule of law today, but its pretty clear that's long been an issue (one could start with e.g. the frankly unconstitutional and very early Alien and Sedition Acts, although they didn't last very long).
Mexico is also a ... strange case to cite, when one party held power for more than 70 years starting in 1929 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partido_Revolucionario_Instituc...) ... it's name, in English, is rather suggestive: "Institutional Revolutionary Party". That said, starting sometime around then didn't it/the party provide a fairly stable form of government, and most notably they were willing to give up power peacefully (more or less) fairly recently.
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.
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.
You're right in that duration shouldn't be the only measure, but I think the longevity says something about how society feels in general about the constitution's efficacy.
You can't just magic up a few pages of text and transmogrify it into "law" or a constitution. Constitutions that work are born from cultures with a history of the rule of law, and they represent a distillation of firmly held principles of the people. A good constitution represents a cheat sheet for the ideals of the people, and something that if all law were taken away a keen observer would still be able to identify the constitutional bullet points as extant aspects of society.