While we shouldn't judge by today's standards I don't think it is unreasonable to judge by the standards set in the early stages of the French Revolution... The 'model' Westphalian constitution fell a long way short of the standards of the time

I wasn't really so concerned with judging it by any standards. I think the important thing is that - enlightened or not - the Westphalian constitution * wasn't followed.* Jerome's government ruled by decree, unconstitutionally.

* That *, I think, is the most important difference between a constitutional system that was established by consensus and/or precedent, such as in the USA and UK, and a constitution that is promulgated by a dictator or monarch, such as the Bonaparte constitutions in France and those satellites to which he gave a constitution. In the latter cases, the constitution was secondary to the will of the head of state, who was in no way constrained by his own laws, and could - and did - do as he pleased.

And of course Napoleon himself exercised a supra-national authority over the internal and external affairs of all of those states that was in no way limited by their constitutions. (Hence French police could arrest their citizens and transport them to France, without any due process at the local level, despite the local laws to the contrary.) Even if the local heads of state were inclined to be limited by their constitutions, Napoleon wasn't.

Eh, now we're on a different tangent and it's my fault this time....