I disagree with the premise that countries need a constant supply of new laws to function.
In many countries, the budget or appropriations bills must be passed as a new law every year for things to keep moving. In the US, not having appropriations for even a month was considered unpleasant, and it was getting increasingly so as the effects percolated through the various layers of buffering between the US Treasury and actual paychecks.
Traditionally, in a parliamentary system, if the budget fails, that’s a vote of no confidence and requires new elections—things can’t just keep going.
Abstracting, it seems like constitutions are deliberately designed so that the government can’t go on autopilot—if it were possible for the country to run without new legislation for years, that would weaken the legislature compared to the executive, and it’s widely believed that unchecked executive power is dangerous to liberty.
In many countries, the budget or appropriations bills must be passed as a new law every year for things to keep moving. In the US, not having appropriations for even a month was considered unpleasant, and it was getting increasingly so as the effects percolated through the various layers of buffering between the US Treasury and actual paychecks.
Traditionally, in a parliamentary system, if the budget fails, that’s a vote of no confidence and requires new elections—things can’t just keep going.
Abstracting, it seems like constitutions are deliberately designed so that the government can’t go on autopilot—if it were possible for the country to run without new legislation for years, that would weaken the legislature compared to the executive, and it’s widely believed that unchecked executive power is dangerous to liberty.