> Why does all the "nation building" around the world by the United States never result in a US style constitution, but seemingly inevitably in something closer to the German one?

Then again, US nation building tends to be an abysmal failure (though, tbf, constitutional structure is not high on the list of defensible reasons for that.)

The nation building after WW2 for Germany & Japan worked out rather well.

Both were by committee and not the US unilaterally, for one.

Well, in Germany we saw what happened when one of the "committee" members decided unilaterally to run East Germany a bit differently. Each of the 4 powers ran their zone as they saw fit.

Besides, what committee ran Japan? McArthur ran it as he saw fit.

> The nation building after WW2 for Germany & Japan worked out rather well.

The US took exquisite care after WWII, to the point of sharply limiting things like denazification, to preserve civic and administrative infrastructure of the relatively advanced states it occupied to avoid having to nation-build in Germany and Japan.

It's out of copyright, so we don't have to give it to anyone. They can just take it.

Usually, countries being "nation-built" aren't in a position to choose anything.

So... you should be happy about the winning power allowing some self determinism. Would you rather it have been forced?

In Germany, laws are copyrighted under a reasonable use with attribution licence.

That's wrong.

The constitutions the US imposed on Germany and Japan we're talking about, which are very different from the US. No unlimited access to firearms and hate speech, for obvious reasons.