The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is so terse that debate rages continually about what a given statement actually means (see, e.g. the 2nd Amendment).
So there aren't any people trying to latch onto every nook in order to subvert the original message? That's...intresting.
I'm mostly familar with the American Bill of Rights and the German Grundgesetz, which is much longer and contains more rights, albeit not always more solid definitions. I've been in discussions before, where I'd defend one right, and was contered with another, equally valid right that was somehow conflicting with the other. In that way, the Grundgesetz trips over itself, and it's hard to argue for a given interpretation (so are these rights equal, or is this right of a lower denomination than the other, and how far can you compromise this right so this right can be put into effect, and if everyone has a Recht auf Arbeit (Right to have work), aren't we infringing on that?).
Obviously, I'd rather have a terse, but in itself noncontradicting bill of rights than a long list of irreconcilable demands. But they're both not neccesairily optimal.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html
The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is so terse that debate rages continually about what a given statement actually means (see, e.g. the 2nd Amendment).