Question

what are your own views on each state having a written constitution? Instead of having written constitutions, would it be easier and better to simply allow each state to go by the mood and expectations of the people (or the state government) at the time? Please explain your views.

Answer 1

The constitution provides a set of written rules that is authorized and approved by the people. Each country need a written constitution to protect natural rights to life, liberty and property. Each state in the country has to abide by the rules, regulations set by constitution.

As far as the question regarding relevance of written Constitution for each state is concerned, I have my views that --

* Each state in a country has the power to govern itself, so long as those governing powers do not directly conflict with or override the terms under which we agree to be the united entitiy.

* Now as of my second view regarding, -- instead of having written constitution, whether it would be easier and better to simply allow each state to go by mood and expectations of people or state government.

I think, first we should understand the benefit of written constitution over an unwritten one. --

* Written constitution is very clear and precise, free from doubts and ambiguity which helps to express the guiding principles of a state or nation.

* But there is a shortcoming of written constitution is that, it is rigid and not easily amendable.

As far as the question regarding such a constitution which is flexible enough to go by the mood and expectations of community. I am totally against it because it only would add to confllicts and clashes in general public in regards to racial, religious, political and economical grounds.