>Would you say the same about the US constitution? Yes and no. On the goal of establishing the system and structure of a body of government it sits at the top

>Would you say the same about the US constitution? Yes and no. On the goal of establishing the system and structure of a body of government it sits at the top of, I think it was well drafted. But something like commas in 2A, "unreasonable searches" in the 4A, or the commerce clause, not so much. (Although, from a historical article I vaguely recall, the issue was that they weren't unable actually able to settle on the core intent of 4A in the first place and compromised between the "reasonable" and "warrants always required" camps.) >It was designed to be updated and changed, rather than be written in stone. To you, is that the same as saying that it's "poorly drafted" and they knew it? No. Even if they were able to perfectly capture their intent at the time, the ability to change law when their intent changed would be desirable. The more interesting criticism along those lines is saying that judicial review is the sign it's poorly drafted. Either they didn't intend on judicial review and flubbed exceptionally hard, or they did intend on judicial review and knew that the document would need regular clarification for the rest of its existence. And from there you could argue that it's the worst written document ever, because they expected the courts to keep revisiting it's meaning.