I don't know what's better, a government that determines and redefines your rights at their leisure or a government that defines your rights, and then passes secret and not-so-secret laws that supersede and suspend your rights for the government's convenience.
The net effect is equivalent; therefore, I prefer the former because it is less hypocritical.
As an American I've become so cynical and frustrated by my government's deliberate evisceration of the Constitution that I wish we didn't have one. The countries of the former British Empire seem to get by with unwritten constitutions. They don't have to pretend they are adhering to. a written Constitutiom while violating it egregiously, which is so much more honest.
America's slippery slope really accelerated once the Progressives seized power in the early 20th century. Wickard v. Filburn was farcical, but it laid the foundation for the insanity of the Raich decision and later upholding Obamacare.
Basically, because of twisted, specious legal sophistry, simply being alive is tantamount to interstate commerce (or the lack interstate commerce, which is *also* interstate commerce thanks to Wickard v. Filburn), and therefore is the complete jurisdiction of the federal government. Because, you know, that's what the Founders meant when they proposed the Constitution.
I kinda get what you meant except many former British colonies have written constitutions. Ironically it is Britian itself that is notable in not having a single document as a written constitution (although there may be other examples).
