Let’s say americans don’t understand what their rights to speech mean. It doesn’t matter since you didn’t repudiate the fact that they may have stronger speech rights.
You are glad that you don’t have the right to bear arms. But that does not seem to me to refute that a constitution is important to prevent erosion of rights or that the US is ahead in terms of rights. Just that you personally don’t care about that right.
Finally, you state that in the U.K there is also a protection from unreasonable search. Fair enough. But is it stronger than what is in the US? Is it protected in form of a constitutional right or just a law that can be repealed at any time?
The strongest argument is that despite these apparent constitutional guarantees, it has not prevented police from infringing on these rights. I would agree. But that seems to me to be an issue of enforcement. Not having these would mean there would be no legal basis to change police behavior, only a social impetus. That may be enough but I would like to have both options.
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 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.
Let’s say americans don’t understand what their rights to speech mean. It doesn’t matter since you didn’t repudiate the fact that they may have stronger speech rights.
You are glad that you don’t have the right to bear arms. But that does not seem to me to refute that a constitution is important to prevent erosion of rights or that the US is ahead in terms of rights. Just that you personally don’t care about that right.
Finally, you state that in the U.K there is also a protection from unreasonable search. Fair enough. But is it stronger than what is in the US? Is it protected in form of a constitutional right or just a law that can be repealed at any time?
The strongest argument is that despite these apparent constitutional guarantees, it has not prevented police from infringing on these rights. I would agree. But that seems to me to be an issue of enforcement. Not having these would mean there would be no legal basis to change police behavior, only a social impetus. That may be enough but I would like to have both options.