Let me add a few more complications. The United States is not a single state like France. It`s a federal state. It includes both national governments and governments. Politicians and judges of the Land have their own ideas about how government should function and what the federal constitution means. An important task of the federal judges is to control the work of the federal states and municipalities. If a state or local government decides to adopt a policy contrary to national law or national constitutional values, the federal courts will reconcile that policy. This contribution describes how constitutional change is made in the United States. American constitutional development draws from two sources: the official one of law and doctrine on the one hand and, on the other hand, through political mobilizations, social influence and cultural changes, that of political parties and civil society. The preamble serves exclusively as an introduction and does not assign powers to the federal government nor does it provide specific restrictions on state action. Because of the limited nature of the preamble, no court has ever used it as a deciding factor in the court decision, except for litigants lightly.
 In 1972, the Supreme Court found that this statement was so consistent with wine that it did not even bother to write an opinion; the judges merely summarily upheld the Minnesota Supreme Court`s decision, which rejected the argument. Yet forty years later, what had once gone astray became on the wall, and in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court found that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry. Of course, this story – that the Constitution, the state, the nation and the people – all were born at the same time – is misleading, even false. The revolution took place in 1776, the war ended in 1781; the Continental Congress organized the Alliance of Rebel Colonies until the end of the war, and the country was governed by the statutes of Confederation from 1781 to 1787. The articles, first written in 1777 and finally ratified four years later, proved to be a failure; Their inability to pursue a practical policy is precisely what led to the Constitution of 1787, adopted in 1788. The Americans have built a modern state — doing everything modern states do — beyond their former constitution. It was largely necessary and perhaps even inevitable. But in the end, this led to a crisis of modernity. Through a crisis of modernity, I mean the realization that we are losing – or have already lost – crucial links with the stabilizing and legitimizing authority of the past and the institutions and traditions of the past. Modernity is the feeling that these forms of authority are obsolete, slip or can no longer fulfil their usual function. A very old constitution has advantages, but also disadvantages.
Its benefits are the degree of respect it is likely to generate over time. Indeed, as I have already explained, the aim of a Constitution is to promote a stable policy, to encourage work for change within a constitutional order can sometimes be a very good thing, at least if the Constitution is not too rigid. It turns out that the U.S. Constitution – or at least the Constitution in practice – is quite flexible, although people sometimes like to do something else. This encouraged Americans to domesticate their repeated impulses for revolutionary political change and to develop them peacefully within the confines of their former Constitution.