Don’t they use past decisions as juris-prudence? With centuries of constitutional decisions you start to have a good amount of records to base your judgement on.
But generally speaking I feel that the “interpretation of the constitution” where judges have the responsibility to interpret century old documents is a very US thing, other democracies generally have a more recent constitution, and see it as a living document.
But generally speaking I feel that the “interpretation of the constitution” where judges have the responsibility to interpret century old documents is a very US thing, other democracies generally have a more recent constitution, and see it as a living document.