The first has no part in the courts and the later is just failing to read to get what you want.
Legal precedent certainly does have a part in the courts...in fact, it is the cornerstone of our judicial system. Common law - rather than code law - has been the governing principle of American courts from the beginning, even predating the Constitution itself. As for "failing to read to get what you want"...if your interpretation of the Constitution was the only correct one, then the Supreme Court would be composed of nothing but "originalists" and there wouldn't be any legal debate over anything in the first place.
Where does it not allow it? Where is it impossible to have industrialized nation. Trying to get answers out of you is not being dense. Its called exploring..
I understand, and I'm not opposed to "exploring" these answers...but it would go a lot more quickly if you didn't misquote me. For example, you just responded to a paragraph where I explicitly said that the problem was NOT that it didn't allow such a system with "where does it not allow it?" It isn't a matter of allowing or not allowing an industrialized nation, it's a matter of the Constitution simply not being designed to accommodate the needs of an industrialized nation.
Not all constitutions are equal so that comparison fails on face value.
I don't expect that our Constitution would work well if it were implemented in France or Japan or Brazil, any moreso than the French/Japanese/Brazilian constitutions would work well if we tried to implement them here. It's not a matter of one being "better" than the other in some objective sense (although some constitutions clearly don't work at all), it's a matter of different constitutions working better in some societies than others. The societal differences between the US and France/Japan/Brazil are simply too great for a constitution from one nation to work just as well in another...and the societal differences between the US circa 1789 and the US circa 2012 are vastly greater still.
The size of the country makes no difference what so ever.
It's not just a matter of size (although that is certainly part of it). It's also a matter of different history, different politics, different cultural values, different economic systems, etc.
And why is that again? Why must you fail at reading to have a working country for today with the document given? Still no answer there.
You still aren't saying anything in this post and that includes this part. How is it unworkable? Please tell me. Stop just repeating yourself over and over again. Thank you.
Here are just a few reasons why an "originalist" interpretation of the US Constitution would not work for our modern society. This is by no means an exhaustive list, just what I could think of off the top of my head:
1. We have cars, airplanes, and an interstate highway system. It is relatively easy for people to pick up and move from one state to another, whereas when the Constitution was written most people lived their entire lives without traveling more than 30 miles from their home. This means that a system of assigning primary taxing/spending responsibilities to the states, rather than the federal government, would be far less effective now than it was in 1789. Not to mention that it greatly increases both the size and scope of interstate commerce.
2. The concept of environmentalism was almost totally unknown in 1789, aside from maybe a few minor issues like overfishing. The Founding Fathers certainly could not have envisioned massive air pollution from smokestacks, widespread electricity consumption, the economics of the oil trade, climate change, nuclear power plants, a hole in the ozone layer (or even the existence of an ozone layer), ocean trawling, etc. Regulating some of these activities cannot easily be done on a state level, because the environmental practices of one state can affect others.
3. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, most people identified with their state first and their nation second. Today, it is the opposite. This is a profound cultural shift, that ingrains a "we're all in this together" mentality on most American citizens. This, of course, leads to comparisons of American policies with those of other nations (rather than between the states), and calls for a heavier federal role in things like health care and education. (You personally may or may not have this mentality, but that's irrelevant to the historical fact that this way of thinking is radically different from what it was in 1789).
You really don't like how the Constitution is put together do you?
It's not a matter of "liking" it or not. It certainly was an historical achievement for its time, and I suppose it worked reasonably well in 1789 (aside from the whole slavery and gender discrimination thing). But it doesn't work well in 2012, at least if one adopts an "originalist" interpretation. Furthermore, there are fundamental flaws in the document - like the amendment process itself - which the Founding Fathers could not possibly have imagined when they were writing it for a nation of 13 coastal colonies, instead of a continent spanning 50 states.
Tell me, why does the government need new powers to advance as a society to work as a country? I still haven't gotten an answer there which I would think is the question to be asked.
See above, re: fundamental differences in society today versus society in 1789. Our Constitution was written for a totally different country, and following an originalist interpretation of it now would be just as alien to modern American society as following the French Constitution would be.
And I honestly don't care what religious people want. Stop acting like I do or that it actually has some sort of reason in your posts. It doesn't.
Umm YOU asked for elaboration on that point; I only brought it up in the first place as the only other example I could think of of people trying to strictly adhere to a nearly-unchangeable 100+ year old document, and applying all those situations to their modern circumstances.
Again, this "exploration" of answers to questions would probably go more efficiently...if you didn't ask a question and then say you didn't care about the answer.
It is supposed to be. How does that make a difference?
It is supposed to be DIFFICULT to amend. It is not supposed to be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to amend. The fact that we've only had a single 7-year period in our entire nation's history in which important, non-coerced, modernizing constitutional amendments were passed, should indicate that the task is nearly impossible. Therefore, the only other solutions are preserving the document as is for all eternity and assuming that we figured out the perfect government for all-time in 1920...or allowing for more modern interpretations of the Constitution.