> The Constitution isn’t a set of “values” against which judges must assess law. It’s a written set of directives and constraints. It’s a contract that defines

> The Constitution isn’t a set of “values” against which judges must assess law. It’s a written set of directives and constraints. It’s a contract that defines the outer scope of democracy. Only if you're a lawyer or a judge. To the people of this country, the Constitution does represent a set of values. Some founders protested the inclusion of the Bill of Rights on the grounds that the constitution already protected many of these things, and that their inclusion would elevate these particular points above others. So why include it, then? It's not unreasonable to see the Bill of Rights as a sort of airing of grievances. For the lawyers and judges that doesn't have any practical value, it's just a system of words to navigate. But just because it's of no use to a lawyer doesn't mean that is the only perspective to consider. Our government ostensibly serves the people and the work of the lawyers and judges and legislators is supposed to manifest as a government that the people want. Regular everyday normal guys look at these programs, we think about what inspired these amendments and how it reflects some set of values, and we think that it still resonates with us today and would like to have a government that is aligned with those values. Us regular everyday normal guys don't care how you lawyer-types get us back there, we just want it done. Really, I think you and I are advocating for the same thing. I realize that surveillance hasn't been struck down because there's no real legal reason to strike it down. What I'm saying is that this isn't a good reason to abandon the system altogether. But I wouldn't go as far as you to say that some set of values doesn't exist, and that the constitution is only a legal document, and that everything is exactly how it's supposed to be.