[Martina]

Originally Posted by Ciaran

Added to that, the US Constitution effectively provides considerable power to the judiciary and, as most of us know, the judiciary can be as personally and politically motivated as any legislature or, for that matter, any human body.

So? As you said, that is true of any institution. The judiciary in the U.S. has a history of protecting minority rights.

Originally Posted by Ciaran

The US Constitution was framed at a time when protection from Government was important. Today, however, it is generally recognised (outside the US) that one of Government's roles is to protect its people (for example, from discriminatory labour practices) i.e. that the framework for a successful society is the Government to protect its people, not for people to need to be protected from Government.

Excellent point, but, as you say, not recognized or accepted in the U.S. We sadly have an exaggerated fear of government. You can't get even a liberal to praise government in the U.S. There has been no vision of government as a force for good since Reagan. I watch old episodes of West Wing and pretend they really happened and cry. (just kidding) Anyway, that's lost for now.

Originally Posted by Ciaran

This continued US rhetoric about personal freedoms, in my view, hinders the progression of a society that offers basic protective rights - I was amazed at the chart, assuming it is accurate, that was posted in this thread showing the US states in which it is legal to dismiss employees for being LGBT. Great that the US has a constitution but, me, I prefer substantive rights.

Very true. But we are also LOSING these personal freedoms. It would seem like at least a few people care. I am thinking of Ron Paul's youthful followers. (not a supporter of Paul, but there are some hopeful elements in his popularity.) Anyway, during the Bush era, I wondered if anyone did care. And talking about personal freedoms is one way to reach out to people. My students sure care about whether they can be arrested and held without cause. Most people care about how their personal information is used.

And there is no "either or" between the US constitution and substantive rights. In fact, that constitution has helped us guarantee substantive rights, any number of times. VOTING rights, for example. Freedom of the press. You can argue that the market means that we do not get much of a choice when we vote or that the Press has been reduced to cheap entertainment. How little coverage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gotten is a national shame.

But these freedoms still mean something. Republicans as we speak are working hard to restrict the franchise (requiring voters to show ID). They have a healthy fear of voters, especially minority voters. That is an encouraging sign.