i think amendments which would specify, define, identify would be quite contrary to a negative dialectics. the dialectic of a constitution would be between constitution and constituent power, where the latter is better served by limiting the former as much as possible. that's why i'm voting against the preamble at next weekend's referendum here, and why i'm hoping, rather perversely i admit, that there will be a 'no' vote on the republic: if it gets up, end of debate, _constitution_ is set in concrete; if it goes down, the debate begins on the bases of constitutional authority and constituent power will, for the first time in australian history, have asserted itself as an interruption. the current assessment from the right-wing republicans is that when "debate begins on the meaning of the result, the question of national identity is only likely to become more vexed, not less so, if the republic is defeated." sounds good to me.
that's my particular context at the moment. as for the discussion on the US constitution, i wonder why the US left has never argued for the abolition of the bill of rights. i'm also thinking that the inclusion of such an apparently exhaustive bill of rights in the SA constitution really entails a means to delimit the struggles around those rights: 'look, we've acheived them!'.
Angela _________