Second this. Keep posting videos! Nearly every video you post piques my interest. When I don't watch, it's because I'm simply not in the mood for philosophy at that moment.
Dworkin has inspired me to continue studying philosophy at university once i get my JD. He truly got the best of the both worlds of law and philosophy.
@@bens5859 Yes, it's a powerful example. I think that the op was pointing out the overturning of Roe vs Wade. In itself, not very controversial, but the fact that it impacts a basic tenet of existence, that of the self, makes it a violation of the idea of political representation. In truth it is easier to corrupt the father of law than it is the many children of an imperfect parliament. I say this as an Australian, bound by the Westminster system of Democracy, and in total awe of the idea of a Republic. At around 18:30 we see how 'quaint' the discussion is when Dworkin points out that courts can protect us from fundamentalism in our parliaments. I doubt he could have envisaged the decendancy of Trumpism.
I think that the shorthand answer is “its for the everyone’s own good.” constitutions are social contracts, so if they are democratic, they provide the framework for the masses to have political freedom, and if they are a rule of law based constitution that we in the us have adopted, this should ensure that people have rights to be left alone from gov’t interference. If we had no constitution at all, there wouldn’t even be a polity, it would be state of nature type stuff, if its a fluid, ever changing constitution that isn’t really a bind, the citizens don’t enjoy the kinds of guarantees to their individual rights or public freedoms they would otherwise enjoy, and there is a pretty significant risk of backsliding. Constitutions in themselves, don’t actually bind us, rather we choose to bind ourselves to them in order to prevent against our own destruction
