I've already said – it makes the document harder to follow and harder to understand. I don't see how that's a mere triviality. The ability of citizens to understand the law is a valuable thing, and especially when dealing with the most foundational law of a legal system, its constitution.
> The principles in action, more specifically.
Principles and their application matter, but form matters too. I'd agree that principles and their application are more important than form, but form still matters. Imagine you had a constitution with the best possible principles and the best possible application of those principles, but the text itself was significantly harder to understand than it could be – changing the text to make it easier to understand would make that constitution even better.
AFAIK, this circumstance has no significant effects of this kind. Still, the burden of proof is on you, and all you've provided is an opinion.
Principles and their application matter, but form matters too.
Woo.
It's better, in my opinion, that people know the messy history and can see it in the law. This way, they can know the nuanced history of how we all got to the present day. Otherwise, dishonest "activists" might try to sell young people some B-movie version of history.
> Which is all you've done too.
You've fallen into the trap. You just admitted that your "effect" is not any kind of proof, just an opinion. On the other hand, my opinion has no material effect on my position that your points are trivial, woo, and the bandying about of opinion. That was kind of the point, of my using the word opinion.
Thanks for playing.
If you aren't interested in opinions why do you bother? That's all this site has. Yours, mine, those of however many other users there are here.