If being a constitutionalist means churning out 'opinions,' the constitution too becomes an opinion, indeed a sum of opinions. And it even becomes an opinion that there is this Constitution and not another. Once, at least on this, constitutionalists were united: that Constitution to which they promised to devote studies and energies must be defended and promoted. Today, an era seems to have passed and many are working on the opposite purpose: to change it, to make it unrecognizable. Of course, they say, the purpose is always to improve it. Are they still constitutionalists? The question is a fair one. Sometimes they seem to be ideologues, other times politicians, if not also politicians who use the Constitution as a means and not as the end, the ultimate goal that is coexistence without overpowering and without violence. “What are we becoming?” wonders a constitutionalist from long ago. Is it a fate to end up among the 'opinion makers' from which those most congenial to this or that political area, to this or that thesis are fished out? There is an Association of Constitutionalists that brings together about 500 people with the task of “promoting and defending the peculiarities of constitutionalist culture.” What are these peculiarities? If there were any, where did they end up? Perhaps at one time they could have been answered. Today it is difficult. “Let me be clear,” it says in this book, ”this is not a criticism, but an observation and, at the same time, a disappointment, a regret and, perhaps, a remorse.