Yes, that's one of the principles, but I'd strongly dispute the characterisation in the post I replied to that this is to prevent the "plebs" having something t

Yes, that's one of the principles, but I'd strongly dispute the characterisation in the post I replied to that this is to prevent the "plebs" having something to "criticise". On the contrary, it helps ensure that elections are meaningful, as there are no constraints on what the legislature thus elected can do. They are not bound by the actions of previous parliaments. The UK could far more easily repeal its gun laws than the US could repeal the 2nd amendment, were the population to want that. Not that I'm claiming the US model is inferior in some way, of course. Constitutional questions are complex and heavily dependent on a country's history and culture. One apparent weakness of the US system is that enormous power is placed in the hands of a group of unelected officials, appointed and approved by the current executive and legislature, who then wield that power for life. I could make that point by pointing out that the law on one of the most contentious issues, abortion, has been determined for decades by the partisan composition of the supreme court rather than by public opinion. I could say something like "the US constitution is there to prevent the hoi polloi having a say" but it wouldn't make any point worth making or lead to a reasoned discussion. The issue is rather more nuanced than that.