RE: Does a blockchain need a constitution?
What's so strange to me is that your arguments collapse under their own weight. In one case (TheDAO) you argue that "code is law" and that, whatever the code allows is permissible/legal/acceptable. And then in another case (blockchains themselves) you argue that "code is NOT law" and that, instead, we need a completely separate human-made "primary consensus" or "constitution" defining what is, and is not, permissible/legal/acceptable to do on a blockchain.
So, which is it? Is code law or not? If it is, then whatever is technically possible on a blockchain is permissible/legal/acceptable.
I resolve the inconsistency in the only logically consistent way possible--code is in fact law as regards the blockchain itself. However, code is not, and cannot be, law as regards smart contracts since all smart contracts are subject to the greater rules of the blockchain. The "code is law" blockchain always trumps the smart contracts that run upon it, and whatever is permissible/acceptable/legal to do on a blockchain is permissible/acceptable/legal to do in or to a smart contract.
Also, even if we assume your reasoning is valid, paradoxically it undermines your case, not mine.
This is how I understand your standing:
If the above understanding is correct, we have this paradox:
It seems to me that you treat the intentions of smart contract creators as important and binding (despite the authors denying them) and at the same time you treat the intentions of blockchain creators as non-binding and unimportant (despite the authors publicly announcing them).
I do the exact opposite.
I don't see any inconsistency at all, quite the opposite. A constitution can say that for a smart contract "code is law" and nobody, even the blockchain itself, can "legally" interfere with it. I can easily imagine an Ethereum constitution having the following clause: There can be no hard-fork aimed at reverting an existing transaction. What exactly is inconsistent here?
Your conclusion is false IMO. We can make smart contracts subjects of the greater rules of the blockchain, as you suggest, or we can choose the opposite. The technical aspect that a blockchain is a medium, where a smart contract exists and executes its code, has nothing to do with it.
Again, your conclusion is false. The blockchain CAN trump a smart contract but this does not mean it has the RIGHT to do so. And this is where a constitution plays its role: it defines the legal aspect, not the technical ability aspect. I've been trying to explain it to you many times, but I guess I failed. Which is kind of strange, as you are a lawyer and I am not.