Your stance contains yet another fatal contradiction. You accept that constitutional rights can "bind future transient majorities" through a hierarchy of law, b

Your stance contains yet another fatal contradiction. You accept that constitutional rights can "bind future transient majorities" through a hierarchy of law, but then claim any interpretation of those rights is illegitimate "philosophical consideration." This makes no sense - written rights require interpretation to have any meaning. The right to "free speech" doesn't self-define what counts as speech or what restrictions are reasonable. You're creating an artificial distinction between "expanding" rights and protecting them. When courts stopped governments from banning internet speech, were they "creating new rights" or protecting the existing right to free expression in a new context? When they applied equal protection to new forms of discrimination, were they "expanding rights" or fulfilling their original purpose? Your comparison to Iran's Guardian Council continues to miss the mark. Constitutional courts interpret democratically-established texts through transparent legal reasoning, subject to democratic override. Iran's clerics impose religious doctrine with no democratic foundation or accountability. These aren't remotely comparable. What you frame as "philosophical considerations" are actually necessary legal analysis of how established rights apply to new situations. Without this, constitutional rights become empty words, unable to serve their democratic purpose of protecting minority participation and preventing majority overreach. The irony is that your position would create exactly what you claim to oppose - a system where rights mean whatever temporary majorities say they mean, making them no rights at all. That's not democracy - it's just mob rule with extra steps.