Step-by-step explanation:
It was brief so that the common man could understand it. Not just understand it, but absorb it, embrace it, feel like it was his/hers, feel like it was foundational to his/her rights without being written in lawyerese.
It cannot be overemphasized that the Constitution did not GRANT these rights, it LISTED them; those rights being God-given, natural rights. It said what the government CAN’T do and CAN’T take away. This is both subtle and profound. Remember the times the Constitution was written in. The overwhelming majority of countries that had existed to that point (as is true, but less true today) in the entire history of humanity were monarchies or dictatorships. The King or tyrant or ruler wasn’t exactly in the business of granting the common people rights. Nor was he/she in the business of citing the authority of a superior being whose edicts, rules, etc; were greater than those of the King. He/she was in the business of extracting taxes and controlling behavior by making laws, often on a whim. In most countries over the course of history, a citizen could really never know if suddenly a thing that he/she was doing would be declared illegal and thus expose him/her to scrutiny and perhaps punishment from the king. Because there were no rules, except, “whatever the king says, goes”. The very idea that a country would be formed on the basis of what the government CAN NOT do to you was exceptional, remarkable, unique, AND IT STILL IS. This is the precise definition of “American exceptionalism”. It is NOT that we are better than Lithuanians; it is that the country was founded on this crazy idea that government CAN NOT take rights away from you, and that the individual, not the king, is the highest form of life.
So; in the 225 odd years since the Constitution was ratified, a lot has gone on, to put it mildly. In that time, the country has gone from almost entirely agricultural to man on the moon, cel phones, and etc; etc; The entire Industrial Revolution. That numerous situations and conditions have arisen to induce different understandings and interpretations (not to mention the changing definitions of words over that same time) is not surprising; but what IS surprising is how incredibly prescient the Founders were in anticipating so much of what is in existence today. No, they did not foresee cel phones and computers, but they DID know about natural law and about human nature and regarded those things as timeless. Did they miss a thing or two or twenty-five? Sure. I find it remarkable what they saw and knew and wanted to incorporate onto this blank slate of a country. Because they were learned men who had deep understandings of history, were religious, moral, and were professionals; farmers, lawyers, craftsmen; not the professional political money grubbing wretches we mostly have today. They were not supposed to stay in Congres or the Senate for 35 years. They wanted to serve for a few years and then return home and take up their careers and work.
Strength or weakness? It depends upon whether the legal system always wants to consult with or reflect upon the original ideas of the Founders when it comes to assessing the vagaries of changing conditions (originalism) or whether it wants to abandon the implied authority and guidance of the Constitution because, well, those guys who wrote the thing were just old men who had no idea what they were doing, and we, geniuses that we are, know so much better. I favor the former.