It’s constitutions agreed from the consensus. Nobody gives them unilaterally, nor nor imposes them political conglomerate or group one because then devoid of a framework of legitimacy. These constitutions are multilateral and are therefore, contractual and says that they are based on the theory of the Social Pact. From them, and within their legal systems, are designed along the different history project-in-country, whose most notorious diversity we can observe in their foreign policies, or international relations with other States and Governments. The most obvious and representative sample the It has the distinct and quasi antagonistic projects-in-country two administrations of George W. Bush against the Obama administration project-in-country, and both projects so different from the Clinton administration, though everyone framed within the Constitution of the United States of America, which has a data previous to the establishment of our Captain General.
I agree with you in a statement: with only comply with laws is sufficient so that everyone can achieve greater material and spiritual well-being as possible. That possibility of material and spiritual well-being was also present in the Venezuelan Constitution of 1961. Didn’t need another Constitution; only suit, aggiornar the existing, and that was the objective that arose from the National Commission for the reform of the State, but everything indicates that its recommendations were not accepted (much less executed) because they were not covered in the country project of those then. Point No. 2: Applying for a national project is negative. It is to communicate that something is lacking, that our leaders forget something and are not competent enough. It’s put us to think about what is it that makes missing, confuse us.
It is distrust leaders who fight for democracy and who have done so well. Comments to point No. 2: false. A project-in-country is not a negative element, nor should per contradict the fundamental principles of the Magna Carta.