[jltsiren]

I believe that a constitution should get a full rewrite once every 50-60 years. That's to only way to ensure that the constitution remains legitimate and relevant.

The US does not really have a constitution. There is a set of documents that claims to be the constitution, but it's so out of date that it can't serve as one. Then there is the Supreme Court, which can change the actual constitution easily with its creative interpretations. Because there is no need for a widespread consensus for changing the constitution, its legitimacy remains questionable at best.

[Andrex]

The Constitution is a divining rod to cut through hundreds of years of patchwork caselaw and legislation. Its true use is in a psychological "what would God/The Constitution want?" sense.

Does it make rational sense? Not really, but my reading of history shows a stronger national identity if tied to something "beyond." Whether that be God, Pharaoh, the Founding Fathers, what have you.

[krapp]

>Its true use is in a psychological "what would God/The Constitution want?" sense.

That's its purpose as the holy writ of the civil religion of the United States. And indeed, the Supreme Court derives their authority to judge the Constitutionality of matters from, in essence, divining the will of the Prophets (Founding Fathers) in interpreting this divine scripture. And as with the Pope, they remain infallible even when they contradict themselves, as well as unaccountable.

However, my reading of history has shown that strong national identities built around the worship of state and national myths tend towards dark and bloody ends.

In reality, The Constitution is what it is. A 200 year old legal fiction. A compromise between flawed, mortal men written to serve the needs of an agrarian society far closer to medieval than modern, created with the expectation that times and needs can change.