What is so great about the South African Constitution?

@Seth, for someone with a new respect for specificity (NOT) 14275 & is always looking for a "better truth" considering the failure of language 14258 as your strawman to prop up judges who make law up on the fly seeming to be your forte - you missed the point again.

Well the supreme court will always be criticized by the side which is ruled against ... with Roe V. Wade appareltly it was you side ... with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission apparently it was my side.  Neither side has any knowledge into what the constitution means .... just because it means exactly what the Supreme Court says it means.  I do believe that is in fact the consequence of what the United States Constitution says.  Based upon that it doesn't actually matter how specific the wording is ... but the more specific, the harder it is to interpret it according the situations of the current day.  

Imagine that you are a programmer and are tasked with writing a program that will be applied 400 years in the future.  The more specific you write the code, the more brital and the less it will be an accurate guide. 

No i didn't read the SA constitution constitution ... perhaps you can bring into the dialoge specifically what you object to there.

Did you bother to check out the SA constitution?  I think the US Constitution is a masterpiece that has lasted a very long time.  It's wording is very clear.  OTOH, various courts, presidents & congresses have exploited whatever wiggle room exists to make-up new law.  The US constitution has alteration built into it. The Supreme Court does interpret it. OTOH, we don't want something so general that the Supreme Court makes new law on their own like they did with Roe V Wade. Law that is wishy-washy isn't law at all & tends, like wishy-washy agreements amongst eachother, toward chaos & every group to itself.

Rather than argue any of that stuff, which has nothing to do with my topic (what's good or better about the South African Constitution that RBG found as a better model for Egypt) argue the one I started out with. 

The simple fact is that gay-marriage is a political thing in violation of millenia of tradition & law. It is being force-fitted into a place that it does not belong by the liberal establishment. It is not a constitutional question, yet! I would like to see what happens if it were brought up as a constitutional amendment. For that matter bring back polygamy & polyandry. Keep it to the human species, though.

OBVIOUSLY YOURS DO NOT!

So are most of the rest of the words in the U.S. Constitution - particularly in the context of government, legal tradition, common law & the like.

Q.E.D

If you think about it, you really don't want a single judge or 9 old people writing the laws that apply to you out of thin air or their own prejudices & popular opinion at the time.  That is why the US Constitution provided representative law making in the legislative branch instead.