But does it really function? Honestly?
The Constitution allowed for things to get to the dysfunctional point that they are now. Part of the reason is that the framers couldn't possibly have foreseen everything that was yet to come. Apathetic populace. Mass media. Marbury. Any number of other factors.
A reliable trait of humanity is that there will always be people who wish to game the system. Every law is open to interpretation. The inevitable but necessary parsing of every word, idea or nuance causes evolution of the original product. Just like so many other things, it will with time and use become corrupt, cluttered, cumbersome, and convoluted.
Three thoughts:
1. From a historical perspective, the constitution is one of the most successful governmental foundations of all time in terms of lastability.
2. One fault in the constitution is that it was intentionally written in elegant language. Gouverneur Morris was assigned to the specific job of making the constitution's writing stylistic. In retrospect, simplistic language would have been better. If the second amendment simply said "All American citizens have the right to own any firearm," there wouldn't be much debate.
3. I guess what I don't understand is how the constitution is somehow directly a cause of the faults of our political system. Anything, no matter how good intentioned or well executed can be flipped into something bad. I think what you're saying is that it's not designed to evolve. But in a way, that's its greatest feature.
Look at Britain's comparatively terrible speech laws in comparison to our own, especially the libel laws. Without the first amendment political speech in this country wouldn't be anywhere near as unrestricted as it is today. Government interference in business comes from a misinterpretation of the commerce clause, which was supposed to only apply to the specific business of moving goods between states. I know you hate government spying on people. If the fourth amendment was actually followed, it wouldn't be a problem.
To me, it seems like the biggest fault in the constitution is that it's too flexible. When you say freedom of speech shouldn't be restricted, it opens up too many questions about what that is in the first place. If the first amendment read "No governing body in the United States may regulate any form of speech or expression unless it creates immediate physical danger for another human being or group of human beings," there wouldn't be much to debate. Probably not the best way to parse the text (if you consent to be in a dangerous situation, does it still count as dangerous?), but hopefully I'm making my point.
What does being American have to do with it? I would think any nationality can come to the realization that any document, no matter how "gravitively" written, is ultimately dependent on the consent of its followers. I think it's more a historical artifact (the US being so young and only having had one form of government) that people here think it is the only proper way to do things.
rumborak
Here's why I ask. Most of the world seems to look at a country's constitution as a sort of loose set of rules or guideposts to build the country's legal system around.
The American legal system does not work that way. Every law passed by every governing body in the country is supposed to legally fit with the constitution. If not, then it's invalid.
What's weird to me is that no one looks at any other set of law this way. Nobody looks at tax law and figures that since the economy's bad they should have to pay as much in taxes this year. At least not in terms of what the law means. So why is the constitution, the master law of the country, somehow less relevant just because it's old?