[Dr. Franklin]

But that’s the problem with constitutions that do have such laws enshrined—they are too readily abused. Have a look at the constitutions that are too comprehensive in its laws.
Never mind Tacitus’ famous quote, that outlines the fact that the state with the most laws is the most corrupt.

Ours was the first written constitution, but by comparison with European constitutions in the Napoleonic Code system, ours lacks detail. Specificity in the constitution itself lessens the need for judicial interpretation of the same. I personally think our constitutional rights need to be more detailed than they are to reduce the role of judges when the government wants to abridge our rights.

[Olog-hai]

The constitution of the USSR was more detailed in terms of rights than the US; problem is, it construed them in “positive rights” format where they were granted by government (Obama complained about our “charter of negative liberties” because they tied government’s hands) and with the caveat of being “in the interests of the working people”, and we know how well that worked out