Unconstitutional

Every country in the world has a ruler.
Many countries have constitutions,
where the obligations and choices
open to citizens and corporations
are laid out for all to read and quote.

Where judges head courts to decide
what the constitution allows or bars,
where the history of case law
becomes the history of the constitution,
and what was banned before may now be legal.

I have travelled to relatively few countries
and I was too incurious to learn how they worked
when I was there. But I find it hard to imagine
how national arguments work without a document
from which the arguments start. 

In my country what a constitution
is, and does, get hopelessly fudged.

The populace are regularly fed
with substitutes for rational argument
with phrases such as 'the unwritten constitution'
and 'Our royalty are/embody our constitution',
as if such non-arguments are as self-renewing,
moral, and substantial, as the case law
built on a written document might be.

A constitution is the best source for a national argument.
Arguments can start without a state source document,
to supply the basis of an argument. But to have no source
document for any national argument is to covertly admit
to a level of avoidance by legislators that were it recognised
it would be a source of embarrassment, beyond shame.