

What makes a constitution endure? - Abid
http://www.uchicago.edu/features/20100920_constitution.shtml

======
philwelch
_Successful models include the precise Mexican constitution of 1917, which has
survived through periods of dictatorship and democracy, Ginsburg notes._

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.

~~~
hga
I would add the Great Depression Constitution. With changes in things like
turning the Commerce Clause on its head that lead to cases like Wickard v.
Filburn (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn>) I can't really say
we're living under the same constitutional order as the post-antebellum one.

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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partido_Revolucionario_Institucional))
... 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.

------
Zev
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.

~~~
philwelch
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.

~~~
Zev
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.

------
bluesnowmonkey
Why should duration be considered a measure of a constitution's success? The
goal is to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare," etc.
If it achieves this for 50 years, then is replaced by another that also
succeeds for 50 years, is the result in any way worse than a constitution that
lasts for 100?

~~~
Abid
I think scraping a constitution and writing a new one inevitably brings about
political turmoil precisely because the stated goals aren't being
accomplished.

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.

------
InclinedPlane
Culture. Law and culture are symbiotic and complementary. One supports and
sustains the other, if they are in conflict then either one dominates the
other (resulting in anarchy or a police state, for example) or society pays
the ongoing cost of that conflict (see the drug war, modern copyright law,
etc.)

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.

------
toddh
The virtue of her people.

