But it doesn't make sense to hold on to the Bill of Rights as if it's some sort of unchanging collection of truths. As I said before, the 3rd (for example) has become pretty pointless in our time and age.

And the 4th has been hollowed out completely because it doesn't specifically mention your privacy in terms of (wireless, electronic) communications or stuff like that. Simply because it didn't exist or make sense in the days of the founding fathers doesn't mean it doesn't now.

The idea behind the Bill of Rights is noble (if a little spiced with Enlightenment naïvité), but regarding it as an evident truth - or worse, regarding everything that isn't in it as optional just isn't right. Times change, so do we. 1700 is a long time ago. Some ideas like freedom of speech, religion, etc. and legal representation are clearly either timeless or bound to the fabric of the society itself and shouldn't be changed. But the ones that are clearly dating from the times when pioneering farmers were expecting the UK to come crashing down their potato fields are just silly. They should replace them with something that actually has a point (and is urgent) in this world: invasion of personal privacy and modern civil and economic challenges.

One of the points of it is that you can't get rid of any... without making a new one that counteracts it. If you could, all it would take is one oppressive government to abolish the right to assembly, speech, and arms and bam, we'd be a dictatorship.

Regarding law, it's only the basis for law... law itself can do pretty much anything and is ruled by laws and precedence. The constitution is just a framework. As for interpreting how a 200+ year old document applies to modern times, that's what the Supreme Court is for.

Anyway, we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

Regarding the applicability of the constitution, what about the Belgian constitution? Like Title II, Act 24, "Education is free; any preventative measure is forbidden; the repression of offences is only governed by law or decree. ". So why do people in Belgium have to pay for college?

I dunno...isn't right to education one of the basic human rights? As such it should probably be a part of every constitution. Personally, I think it's probably one of the most important things to emphasize in any legal frame. More important than the 5th amendment for sure.

P.S. I am aware of the relative meaningless of the UN chapters of "fundamental human rights". But it's a noble initiative regardless.

you're just secretly a communist. admit it before we put you in "the chair" and have to use the "dental drill of truth" on you.

It's not so odd that the right to education is in the Belgian constitution. Most Western-European constitutions were written in the 19th century, and that's the peak time of liberalism*, of which education is a core principle.

*And with liberalism I don't mean socialism, you yank bastards.

Yeah, personal betterment will save the universe and all that jazz. The European liberal movement (especially the naïve one of days past) can be compared more to libertarianism trends in the US than anything else I think. While the Republican party is all for liberal economics, it's mired in a Christian-conservative morality that doesn't really agree well with most liberals. E.g. in Belgium most high-ranking liberal party members are freemasoners...so yeah, not too big on religion.

Usually vote socialist myself, but only because I have to vote. More of a status quo vote - right wing parties getting too strong and annoying me so i vote agains them - than really ideological, but whatever. I'm sure I come over as the communist superdevil for most Americans.