What the Constitution’s critics often miss is that it isn’t magic, it’s law, and as a piece of law the Constitution is neither a code (codified laws came later

What the Constitution’s critics often miss is that it isn’t magic, it’s law, and as a piece of law the Constitution is neither a code (codified laws came later in America) nor is it exhaustive. It’s a starting point. But since it is law, and carries the force of law, then if you disagree with the law the way forward is clear: you change or amend the law. If there’s any magic, it’s that laymen critics don’t often understand it well enough to criticize it in an effective and useful manner that would lead to useful improvements or replacements. You can sit down at your computer and bang out 7 to 10 articles and call it a Constitution, but what choices would you make and why? What would be the ramifications of your changes and would they actually cause more harm than good compared to the status quo? The real magic is that if you put a gun to ten to fifty wisemen of the Present day, they probably couldn’t do much better and you would end up with a tweaked version of what we have because it turns out, they did a decent job of it back in 1789. No real magic, just forethought, debate, ambition and consideration for what has worked, what hasn’t and what is likely to work for the society in which they lived then and we live now. Anywhere else in the world is likely using the Common law, which goes back a thousand years or more, or a version of the Napoleonic codes modified to the present day or German civil code modified to the present day.