One more thing about the Medina charter. I’m sure this is a topic well discussed among the poli-sci types, but it seems to me that we shouldn’t go around calling things “constitutions” if they aren’t in some way adopted with a modicum of democratic representation. The Ten Commandments, for example, do not amount to a constitution. They’re instructions, or a code of law, but they weren’t discussed, debated or voted on. I’m sure there are semantic points to be made, but it seems to me that while laws handed down by supreme rulers — which cannot be amended or modified — can be enlightened and good, they aren’t constitutions as we understand them.

Note: I do not look forward to a long debate about Japan’s post WWII constitution.