> s I've increasingly leaned to the view that these rights are mostly a legal fiction Ultimately all constitutions are just ink on paper (or parchment dependin

> s I've increasingly leaned to the view that these rights are mostly a legal fiction Ultimately all constitutions are just ink on paper (or parchment depending on age) and are only as good as the people who govern. > things that are supposedly rights are highly subjective political footballs. The fabric of society is a pitch where political football is played. The US Constitution is a product of the times when it was created, and so our pitch was created to balance the power of populous states vs. rural states with proportional representation (House) and fixed representation (Senate) and the electoral college. It took great pains to prevent rule by fiat of the executive because of the lesson from English rule. It's surprising it has held up, but a lot of the pressures that existed when it was created are still present (red state/blue state is really urban/rural) in the US today. > From that point of view, the US Constitution is an awful constitution. If a slow, plodding government that is largely effective only when faced with unifying crisis or there is a very high level of consensus is what you want, then the US Constitution works.