Somehow this has ended up being a discussion about US constitutional issues. Foundational words are important, of course, but lots of countries have adopted pretty words from time to time. But conservative (small c) adherence to the precepts of 200 year old documents written by landed gentry who have nothing in common with present times can be a distraction. You should not overthrow things that have stood the test of time, but neither should you be in adoration of old ideas. For instance, the US constitution didn't do much to prevent slavery, the genocide of native indians, and the 14th amendment didn't prevent Jim Crow. (As a personal aside, referring to them as "Founding Fathers" sounds a little obsequious to me, they were a bunch of rich guys who got sick of paying British taxes. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but keep it in perspective. Setting aside one lame aristocracy for another serves little purpose.)
Harkening back to 18th century ideas of state rights may not necessarily be a good model today. In the "Loving" case, a Virginia law outlawing interracial marriage was upheld by the Virginia supreme court in the mid 1960s (yes 1960, not 1860), so if some of you believe that the US would be better off by letting states have their way and that the US Supreme Court shouldn't have a say in the matter, well, all I can say is that a lot of people won't agree with you.
Anyway, I just wanted to point this podcast,
http://podbay.fm/show/1242537529 , which may turn out to be interesting as it develops further.