Tell you what, when you point to at least 4 countries that are significantly different than the US that do not have defined constitutions, I'll concede to your argument.
Do you really think that something magical happened in 1775 for the history of humanity, or do you think perhaps it was just another example of the (rather established) idea of republicanism?
Just because the US wasn't the first doesn't mean it's not "different than most countries throughout history" unless most countries have been like the US with well defined constitutions. Bear in mind, "most countries" doesn't only include "most Western countries" or "most modern countries". Even that Wikipedia article only lists a handful throughout history.
If this is the case it should be rather straightforward for you to provide an answer to the question I posed in the previous comment, which you have yet to do.
I'll freely admit I'm no expert; I wasn't arguing that I am. I was merely pointing out the fact that four is not a statistically relevant sample size when the population is potentially in the thousands. If you're an expert in the area, I'd like to hear your answer to your question, or a more relevant sample size.
What I'm pointing out is that "most" has a definition, and less than 1% doesn't meet that critera.
