| What is "unreasonable", and regardless of the theoretical protections, are you at risk and do you have any practical recourse? The scale of Civil Asset Forfeiture in the US suggests to me that large sections of US society are at risk and have no practical recourse. Does the US having a written constitution actually help its society to retain their rights, or is it a fig leaf covering the rights you've already lost in practice, and an entitlement preventing society from changing rules that benefit those with power who exercise "rights" that ought not be so set in stone? In practice, the state may compel speech from the powerless: https://thehill.com/homenews/3256719-47-states-require-the-p... In practice, only some groups have the unalienable right to bear arms: https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-... In practice, qualified immunity means there's no way to hold agents of the state accountable for violating your rights: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/20/george... In the UK, Parliament has stated its intent to abide by the European Convention on Human Rights. It's true that one parliament cannot bind the next -- at any time, the UK parliament may decide to repeal everything and change even the foundations upon which our country's laws are built. The checks and balances in the system (including the House of Lords) protect us from the over-reach of a poor choice of government. Even with a large majority, and a stated aim of repealing the Human Rights Act, the current government has found itself unable to dismantle the our protections to the degree it would like. I don't think you can argue that the US constitution gives you an inherent advantage in maintaining your rights. |