I see what is the point of following the Croatian Constitution in the Croatian politics: it was written by people who had experience with recent politics and who were educated in social sciences. But I fail to see what is the point of following the US Constitution. The US Constitution was written by people who knew about natural sciences about as much as a 5th-grader today knows and who knew almost nothing about social sciences, and who by definition didn't know recent history (as they lived in the 18th century).

Hardly anybody would suppose that we should take political ideas from 5th-graders (except perhaps Arsen Dedić, though I suppose it's only in his songs and not in reality), yet many people are proposing we should take ideas from the US Constitution. How do people justify that contradiction?

Not to mention, the problems that the governments currently have to deal with have little to do with the problems governments in the 18th century had to deal with. Governments today deal with the improper use of antibiotics (mostly in the egg industry) leading to pandemics of superbacteria, a problem that didn't exist in the 18th century. Governments today have to deal with the problem of ISPs incorrectly setting up their DNS servers (to respond to requests from all IP adresses, rather than just the IP addresses they are supposed to serve) making it easy for hackers to paralyze the Internet with denial-of-service attacks. That problem didn't exist in the 18th century. And so on... It seems obvious to me that governments solve those problems in spite of ancient constitutions, rather than because of them. How do people who advocate the constitution having a role in politics resolve that apparent contradiction?